Is there anything wrong with eugenics?
Would you like your country to practice eugenics?
>>57902036
>Is there anything wrong with eugenics?
you would have to die
would you suicide so you can practice what you believe in?
>>57902036
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY7giiyfJ0A
>>57902036
>>57902485
>eugenics
>uk
welp, that's excludes your entire country
>>57902515
>his country consists of ethnic brits and rugby dancing men
>>57902545
Eugenics was abandoned in the US because they realized it would take several generations to wipe our recessive genes they considered problematic. Also our knowledge of genetics still isn't good enough to attempt eugenics. And then there's the moral aspects. Would you want a past generation, with different values and worldviews than you, in charge of your genetics? I sure as hell wouldn't.
>>57902515
top fucking kek
>>57902545
just bantz mate
>>57902036
Sure make everyone blonde and blue eyed
>>57902036
Yes. I would die but yes.
>>57902545
it's that bioshock cosplayer
very nice
>>57902036
I would like to practice benis in bagina with this girl desu
>Eugenics
Im a Hook-Nose,does that mean i have to die?
yes
i dont want some neckbeard deciding if i can have a child or not
i rather wait for genetic manupulation
>>57902036
nothing wrong OP, some eugenic people are far from a entire eugenic population.
Stop the butthurt that you're going to die, because your life wouldn't change shit.
>>57902036
fuck yes, eugenics is the future
1 there is everything wrong with eugenics
2 no
eugenics is the gateway to moral absolutism
don't do it
Yeah, but i dont care it wouldn't affect me either way
>>57904258
Benin is growing because of meme magic :DDD I'm sure every woman wants it now.
For health reasons, I think eugenics is fine
I wish it wasn't such a bad word
I don't wish it to be used for racial cleansing or anything but if you have shit genes maybe you shouldn't pass them on
>>57902036
>Is there anything wrong with eugenics?
No. Eugenics just means good genes. People don't like to acknowledge that they have undesirable genes, or they are frightened of genocide, so they attack the notion of assigning value to human attributes. I think a society constructed of people who are genetically predisposed to be happy, intelligent, and attractive would be a better one.
>Would you like your country to practice eugenics?
It already does tacitly, but a state-sponsored eugenics program would be nice. I would at least like to see a community voluntarily founded upon eugenics that utilizes modern genetic research
I view it like capitalism vs socialism. Would you want some corrupt retard who is prone to biases, misjudgement, and prejudice making all the decisions, or the market (natural selection)? Eugenics movements in the past scare me. The children who were a product of Nazi Eugenics were pretty much abused from birth to make them "stronger", like they would ignore crying babies to teach them "strength". Maybe a eugenics program could start off with good intentions of only getting rid of diseases or something, but once you give someone that power, it will eventually be abused.
>>57904860
This is great. I was surprised by Egypt's growth.
>Is there anything wrong with eugenics?
Yes. Genetic diversity is essential for animals, especially mammals. It makes your specie more adaptable for quick changes in environment. Humans would have to be smarter that mother nature itself in order to pursue eugenics.
I still think it should be done for tropical people for various reasons. They're incapable of western lifestyle due to different evolutionary factors.
>>57904639
What's wrong with it?
>>57905375
We already practice it with crops and livestock. We're already good at it desu
>>57905736
We do it to animals that are bred to be slaughtered and plants, which are fucking plants. Neither of those are sentient beings with 80+ year lifespans. What if we modify our genome and done realize it has negative health effects in old age, and we've already birthed hundreds of millions of people with that modification? What if we discover that some modification we made is expressed differently in a different environment that we didn't test for because we couldn't predict it?
>>57905736
http://panamadisease.org/
>>57905710
eugenics is for the most part is artificial selection and may tend towards genetic bottleneck as everyone want the best or even if there is a base set of good set of genes, while there is a positive the negatives will ultimately outweigh the aesthetic and the "no need for pesticide" aspects since there is less genetic variation after some time new genetic problems will come up
plus all kinds of new social control as well
if there is a private organization that helps eugenic control voluntarily then that is not so bad but we have to be ready to except all that we are before we get rid of things we can't control
>>57905807
accept*
>>57905375
>Yes. Genetic diversity is essential for animals, especially mammals
The Sentinelese have a population of 50, they've been living on the island for 30,000 years so it's not essential. Eurofags are so dumb.
>>57905375
This entire post makes no sense. If "adaptability" is "essential for animals, especially mammals" then there wouldn't be any specialized mammals like ant eaters. Suddenly there's no ants suddenly and you don't have the mouth to eat a herbivorous diet so you're fucked.
>>57905890
Ants are in no danger of extinction at all. Adapting to eat them isn't that risky. The vast majority of species that have ever existed, however, have gone extinct, because that is not the norm and those species weren't adaptable enough
>>57905980
There used to be a species of locust in the US, around the midwest. They were so numerous nobody could imagine they could ever go extinct but farmers one day moved in, tilled the field that was their breeding ground and seemingly overnight the locust went extinct, there's like many fossils of species that used to be numerous but are gone now so when you say ants are in no danger of extinction you're just talking out of your ass.
>>57905823
locusts are not a specie by themselves
they are a special cycle of grasshoppers
we don't know what triggers their massive flight but the species that are responsible are still well and fine
>>57906112
Ants are found all over the world. You used an example of a species that was isolated to just the US. Yes, different species of ants will go extinct eventually, but ants as a whole have a lot of diversity and geographic distribution to ensure they will be around for a long time.
>>57906140
>>57906146
No that's flat out wrong. You're talking out of your ass again.
There are other mammals more specialized than ant eaters. Specialization limits adaptability so that Finn is wrong.
>>57902036
>no argentine gf
reeeee
>>57906140
I have no idea what you're talking about. This is animal I'm talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_locust
>>57906299
>>Because locusts are a form of grasshopper that appear when grasshopper populations reach high densities, it was theorized that M. spretus might not be extinct, that "solitary phase" individuals of a migratory grasshopper might be able to turn into the Rocky Mountain locust given the right conditions
read your own links
the locust is a change the grasshopper undergo due to a trigger, they start to swarm and act as if they are a totally different species
they could reappear one day
>>57906254
So you're going to ignore that 99.99% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct because they weren't robust enough to handle change? What about native Americans, who lacked a lot of genetic diversity which ensured that the vulnerability to smallpox was very widespread? The population that had that same vulnerability in the old world (Siberians, the parent population of native Americans), also nearly were wiped out by smallpox, but the vast majority of humans in the old world weren't because genetic diversity ensured that the vulnerability to smallpox was only found in a small amount of the population. You can see the same thing with insects in forests, forests that have less biodiversity are more easily wiped out by insect swarms because more plants are able to be destroyed by the insects/diseases they carry. More diverse forests survive better. I could go on and on. Homogeneity is bad if you ever have to deal with a change in environmental conditions.
>>57906335
>read your own links
ok
>Analysis of mitochondrial DNA from museum specimens and related species suggests that the Rocky Mountain locust was a distinct and now extinct species
>The species was formally declared extinct by the IUCN in 2014
>they could reappear one day
Maybe out of your ass.
>>57906445
wtf, are you citing from that retarded infograph?
Only country with eugenics actually implemented nation-wide coming through
Literally the reason that made us the healthiest and most beautifu and powerful racel in the world
>>57906254
>Homogeneity is bad if you ever have to deal with a change in environmental conditions.
It's not essential. If you want to breed with abos, niggers, Mexicans, and bonobos so you can supposedly "better adapt to environmental conditions" or whatever then go ahead.
>>57906555
How is what I said wrong? And no, I didn't learn this from an infograph. I learned this from my biology textbooks.
why is op photo girl often picked up ?
>>57906735
you prolly had to because you're powerfully inbred
>>57906789
Like it or not, their immune systems might be better adapted to an outbreak of a new disease and keeping them around could end up being beneficial. Also you don't need to mix to preserve genetic diversity. I think you're just projecting your fears now...
>>57907000
That guy is a tard. Biology textbook written by Goldstein says Native Americans could have been saved if they were all mixed with niggers. A lot of diseases are spread from farm animals, Native Americans didn't have those to build immunity. It's why all the locals in far east Asia didn't all die when Europeans arrived.
Supporting eugenics is a easy way to spot an idiot. It's doubly funny coming from anon's that would never in a million years make a legitimate cut for "superior" genetics. All this edge is too fucking much sometimes
>>57907040
It sounds like you don't understand any of this shit and you're regurgitating all this garbage about "genetic diversity" you heard from idiot school teachers, TV and youtube atheists.
>>57907136
But Siberians did die when Russia expanded east. Siberians are most closely related to native Americans. Even if native Americans had livestock, it wouldn't have made a difference unless they had the same diseases as Europeans to build a resistance to.
>>57907262
So are you going to accuse me of being a fedora tipper, or refute my points?
>>57907246
It just means beautiful genes and stands for channeling related developments.
When someone has some kind of disability he doesn't want to pass to the next generation, and therefore has no children, it's an eugenic act.
In case you think disabled people isn't even a thing, or that not wanting to produce severly disabled children is ''edgy'' then I don't even know what to say.
>>57902036
Nah because the people handling it are always too stupid not to just end up inbreeding people and you dont want a limited genetic pool
Also err there's a reason why sometimes women are attracted to ugly men with ''undesirable'' traits and vice versa
In other words nature > you, you dumb fucks
>>57907349
I already did. Why don't you practice polyandry. Let's pretend a fedora neckbeard like you gets married and have three children. Have one child that's biologicaly yours and pay two different guys to knock up your wife. Three children all with different fathers. That's your genetic diversity. Fucking cuck.
>>57907577
Spouting memes =/= an argument. All you did assume that genetic diversity = race mixing (which it isn't) and call me a cuck and a fedora tipper.
>>57907618
Its hilarious actually, he's post was reeking /pol/ from a mile away. I even cringed a bit
>>57907317
Dude even if you weren't full of shit, there's vaccines now, sanitary practices, diet, medicine, so on your argument about genetic homogeneity is invalid. Too bad, cuck.
>>57907429
Humans are nature, you rather mean wilderness and that's just a romantic way of seeing the world.
>>57902036
no
even if i was the first to go
itt; people mistake
euthanasia (beautiful death)
for
eugenics (beautiful genes)
Every act of gene alteration (even by individual breeding choice) can be categorized as eugenics, when there's an aim of creating ''beautiful'' genes whatever that might mean since it might be very subjective.
>tl;dr: In order to be categorized as eugenics something doesn't have to be state implented nor involve killing
>>57907653
Cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck
Is that all you ever think about? Can we have a single discussion that doesn't revolve around cuckolding? Are you even capable of that?
>vaccines
Take a look time to produce when a new disease breaks out for the first time. And it's not even guranteed you can create one for every disease.
>sanitation
Is only one line of defense, and it isn't perfect because people still get sick all the time.
>medicine
Bacteria are evolving to build up resistence to anti biotics. Having a better immune system is ALWAYS a better option than depending on something that might not always work.
>>57907783
eugenics to create the ideal people for your country, why not?
>>57907375
>voluntarily choosing to not have kids is eugenics
Go ahead and nominate who you would want to make the decisions based on who gets to breed and who doesn't. Humanity has withstood population bottlenecks of like 30,000 people left on Earth, if you support eugenics then how far do you take it? Even the top 1% of men might be enough diversity for a program that inherently wants to decrease the size of the human population, at least in the short term. The top 15% gives you a billion men. And that's if the "right" decisions even get made, look at some of the worlds best athletes. Messi is a hgh'd up manlet, Frank Ribery certainly doesn't have "beautiful genes". They're unreal athletes though, so something about them is physically superior to most of us. Some of the most badass veterans look like hilbilly rednecks, but they're obviously fit enough to survive a warzone. There's more than enough resources to continue feeding humanity, instead of eugenics the focus should be on decreasing high birthrates in the third world by allowing women education so they're contributing to society instead of popping out 8 future save the children ads. We've found cures for diseases in the most random fucking plants and animals, limiting human diversity based on unnecessary (and mostly arbitrary) human standards of beauty is just dumb
>>57902363
eugenics doesnt really mean anyone has to die. gene therapy is also a form of eugenics if it targets the reproductive organs aswell. breeding programms of genetically favourable people is also eugenics. sterilzing or killing retards is not the only way to practice eugenics.
>>57907929
Are you German or an anglo living in Germany?
>>57907803
>Can we have a single discussion that doesn't revolve around cuckolding?
You're the one advocating it.
Now you're arguing that vaccination and medicine are worthless. You're a genius. Let's suppose some new tribe in the US was discovered and they want to join society. They're going to be vaccinated, they're going to be educated about sanitation, they'll have access to medicine. Your idea is they need genetic diversity so they have to mix with Europeans, Asians, Blacks. You see how fucking stupid you are.
>>57905375
eugenics has little to do with enforcing genetic purity even if this has been the reason in the past. its all about favourable genes, if that means high genetic diversity or "pure blood" then there is that. the usual approach is to eridicate genetic diseases before anything else anyway not to create blond blue eyed incest children even if nazi propaganda tells us thats the most favourable genetics.
@57908001
You're not getting any more (you)'s from me.
>>57907974
no german german. not anglo german. why?
>>57907865
>>57907871
I like how you both act as if you were debating my points but really don't.
read >>57907783
All I'm trying to do is to get some order in here.
Eugenics is simply totally not limited to state legitimized murder.
eugenics for good genes is still not as stable as one might think
what people choose for genetic manipulation is not purely based on genetic health in the long run
it is based on aesthetic standards and genetic health of the individuals who are a part of this program which means that if there are only low number of this gene repository it will create a bottleneck that can lead to an artificial ethnic gene disease
even if donors are of different ethnic diversity it will not preclude more rapid mutation due to low number of individuals, kind of like the hemophilia from victoria
we can deal with genetic diseases on an individual bases but when the whole population have the same genes it will lead to catastrophe, even if there isn't any in the donor it does not mean somewhere down the line these lines of donor genes might be susceptible to new disease
eugenics introduces an artificial genetic weakness at the price of false comfort and conformity, it is a steep price
>>57908041
That's not me btw.
>>57908041
You're misunderstanding how the word eugenics is understood in anglo countries. If you say eugenics 99% of the time it is about a government backed policy that seeks "purity", this is because most anglo countires actually had eugenics programs in the past with those core values. Even referring to dogs and animals, choosing traits for aesthetics purposes wouldn't be called eugenics, it's selective breeding. If you referred to a horse breeder or a dog breeder as "eugenic" people would think you're a weird German obsessed with aryan shit. The word is political, we have other words for choosing traits for aesthetics rather than purity or the hardiness of the race. If we're talking about manipulating embryos to express certain traits it's a "designer baby" or reprogentics. The closest thing I can think of for what you're talking about is "liberal eugenics" but that's pretty academic, I wouldn't use it talking with my friends or family in a normal conversation. If you've never lived in an anglo country I guess you wouldn't realize which words have certain "associations" with them, but eugenics is one of them, talking positively about it outside of 4chan or being anonymous would probably make you seem like a racist or some kind of nationalist
>>57908298
As I said that's not me >>57907929
>breeding programms of genetically favourable people is also eugenics
>If you say eugenics 99% of the time it is about a government backed policy
You guys are saying the similar things.
>>57908298
Also, you're mixing everything up.
>>57908298
German anon is right regardless of what eugenics means to you. The only people who associate eugenics with government backed genocide are the people who don't know what eugenics is to begin with.
>>57908522
my point exactly. shit obviously I know the negative connections with the word, we had an eugenics programm too after all.
Genetics is the study of (biological) heredity.
The prefix eu- stands for beautiful.
Eugenics is the aim of passing beautiful traits (that will inevitably linked to the genes even in case the connection is not well understood mathematically) to the next generation (and further others to come).
>>57908610
That's not me.
>>57907783
Euthanasia in modern usage doesn't have a thing to do with offing swaths of the population, euthanasia and eugenics aren't related in modern political discourse. Notice all the anglo responses to the op, they're talking about state apparatuses, not individuals determining certain traits to be desirable. Eugenics doesn't have to equate with killing people, but sterilizing undesirable's is effectively a genetic kill.
>>57907375
>When someone has some kind of disability he doesn't want to pass to the next generation, and therefore has no children, it's an eugenic act.
Sure, on 4chan where you can talk abstractly this technically qualifies as a eugenic act. But nobody who speaks english as a first language would use this wording to make their point, eugenics is not associated with individual choice, it is almost always associated with government actions.
>>57907929
>(you whole post)
Again, since you're germans using the word as you understand it from a dictionary or a textbook, yes these are "technically" forms of eugenics. It's just that english speakers use other words for non-state sponsored gene propogation, because saying eugenics makes us think of Hitler and aryan shit. Gene therapy is gene therapy, no English speaker thinks of it as eugenics, even if in a technical sense they're related. If you're responding to a thread about gene therapy, feel free to use this argument, but in a thread asking whether you would want to live in a country that supports eugenics, talking about gene therapy is just being pedantic.
>>57908025
>the usual approach is to eridicate genetic diseases
It's shitty for the people that have them, but it's not your place to determine whether someone else's life is worth living
>>57908522
jfc google eugenics and tell me how many results aren't about state programs. Bringing eugenics down to things like gene therapy is being pedantic and intentionally thick, the op obviously wasn't talking about that shit
>>57908755
the word might come from beatiful but is by no means neccessary or essential to select for "beauty genes" to be called eugenics. besides the prefix "eu" also means "good". the wikipedia definitions in both german and english say pretty much this : "It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics), or both." and the german one: ugenik (von altgriechisch εὖ eÅ© ‚gut‘ und γÎνος génos ‚Geschlecht‘, deutsch Erbgesundheitslehre oder Eugenetik bezeichnet seit 1883 die Anwendung theoretischer Konzepte auf die Bevölkerungs- und Gesundheitspolitik mit dem Ziel, den Anteil positiv bewerteter Erbanlagen zu vergrößern (positive Eugenik) und den negativ bewerteter Erbanlagen zu verringern (negative Eugenik)."
eugenics doesnt just mean racial purity bullshit.
>>57908522
>are the people who don't know what eugenics is to begin with.
Fuck me, I must have missed all those biology classes where we learned terms to refer to gene selection. Stupid me, just call them all eugenic principals because talking about eugenics in plants wouldn't make me sound like an autist
Genetics is the study of (biological) heredity
The prefix eu- stands for beautiful
Eugenics is the aim of developing beautiful traits (that will inevitably linked to the genes even in case the connection is not well understood mathematically) in a next generation (and further others to come).
• The subjective nature of ''beauty'' leads to distortions that gained the field pseudo-scientifical connotations
• Something doesn't have to be state implemented, nor involve euthanasia in order to be labled: eugenic
>>57909089
I do understand that most don't have a clear defintion of the term and only one that results out of the current debate, that's why I wrote what I did.
>>57909089
of course people here also thing of nazi shit with eugenics. doesnt make eugenics itself any more wrong though.
>It's shitty for the people that have them, but it's not your place to determine whether someone else's life is worth living
did I say kill them? nope. but if you cure them with gene therapy you might aswell stop their children from having it in the first place too. and some diseases can only be prevented beforehand not cured afterwards (if it causes malformed children for example).
>>57909152
>the prefix "eu" also means "good"
That's hair splitting.
>génos ‚Geschlecht
I think it's rather linked to literally ''genic''
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-genic&allowed_in_frame=0
>Erb- gesundheits- lehre
Translates to
Heredity- health- school
>>57909191
no the prefix eu- doesnt just stand for beatifull. it stands for good, the greek word means good or beatifull. dont distort the meaning to just make it mean "lets make beatifull children (wich would be largely subjective)". its about the selection of "good genes" while it is hard to determine what good genes are its not so hard to determine what very bad genes are. that would be genetic diseases wich would be the first and foremost goal to eredicate by a modern eugenics programm that isnt just based on nationalism but on wanting the best for future generations. not being forced into a wheelchair from birth would count as that for example.
>>57909376
its not hair splitting if the argument is made that eugenics is purely about "beauty genes" instead of being about "good genes".
>>57909410
No one makes the argument that ''eu'' is about ''visual'' beauty.
>>57909435
about "inner beauty" eh? why call it beauty then in the first place if its not about beauty but about beneficial genes? it makes the impression that eugenics is limited to "blue eyes, blond hair" or similar purely asthetic traits.
anyway gotta go to uni.
>>57909089
You're arguing arbitrarily implied semantics on behalf of a stranger that has shared as much information with you as he has with us. Neither of us knows for certain what the OP was referring to, but only a retard tries to change the meaning of what others say.
>>57909538
It's splitting hair, ''good'' might be a more standardized translation which doesn't have to be bad.
>>57909255
>>57909152
>It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics)
>the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits
This is not the same as:
>but if you cure them with gene therapy you might aswell stop their children from having it in the first place too
Firstly, a social philosophy encouraging higher reproduction for desirable traits isn't possible at the individual level. At most, you as the individual can choose who you want to reproduce with, in the future you might even be able to choose certain traits or eliminate a disease. Yes these are technically eugenic principals, but because you are acting as a free individual there is nothing to stop you.
>did I say kill them?
I wasn't talking about the person with the disease today, the person you're killing is the future person who would inherit the defect. While yes, most people would probably agree that it is a good thing to prevent diseases, you cannot infringe on the individuals freedom to choose. If you "fix" somebodies baby for them, you effectively decided the life of that person with a disease was not worth living, at least without your change. Ask deaf people whether they want their kids to be deaf, more will say yes then you would think. If you actually read published disability theory, you'd understand many handicaps become a part of the life of the people who have them, and they will not necessarily always choose to manipulate their childrens genes to prevent it. If you're willing to override their personal freedom to make that choice then the only way you would actually be able to do that is with the backing of the state's power.
The problems of people choosing their preferred traits to pass on is the same as the government doing it, too many people might overselect for a trait and humanity loses genetic diversity
>>57909664
>Would you like your country to practice eugenics?
Tell me anon, how does (a) country practice eugenics? If OP wanted a discussion on why individuals might choose to select for certain triats, do you think he would say
>your country to practice
>country
It's too bad english doesn't have a way of phrasing that question so that OP could have clarified that to he didn't mean >country and instead meant any fucking number of individual people making their own individual decisions that don't have a thing to do with >a country
But you're right, we're both working off the same amount of information, it's right there in the op. "Country to practice" obviously means things like individual couples choosing gene therapy on their own volition. Hell, how doesn't that include countries practising social theories.
You can fucking take some more english lessons with the krauts posting, I fucking hope your french otherwise I'm embarrassed we came out of the same school system
>>57910122
>Tell me anon, how does (a) country practice eugenics?
Giving out condoms for free.
>>57910122
Countries practice large scale eugenics all of the time. Agriculture programs, reforestation initiatives, etc. You don't think they're trying to weed out the inferior genes?
Or are you going to add more implications to the OP?
>>57910153
If you think that condoms constitute a eugenic program then tell me why university students aren't protesting it? Why is it that racial minorites in the US will literally protest anything but they don't protest getting free condoms from schools or that abortions most affected single teenage mothers (aka most likely a minority). They will protest halloween costumes but you think a eugenic program is just fucking a-ok? Without an external institution selecting for certain traits it is not eugenics, it as most a eugenic practice being exercised by the individual, which doesn't make fucking sense because individuals don't fucking have the power to practice eugenics
>>57910497
This is not eugenics, this is biopower, read a fucking book. Go onto a university campus and argue that reforestation initiatives are eugenics in action, please
>>57910542
You're still using your own definition.
adjective
1.
of or bringing about improvement in the type of offspring produced.
2.
having good inherited characteristics.
I'm done giving you easy (You)s, gas yourself already.
>>57910497
Also, the mere fact you think I'm implying that countries don't practice eugenics makes you a complete retard, my entire argument has been that countries are the only things that can practice eugenics (as it's understood 99% of the time in today's english). But then german posters started arguing that things like gene manipulation by individuals are eugenics. They aren't (in today's english). I pointed out that this isn't even on-topic because OP was talking about "want you country to practice". This does not mean the individuals in the country, it means the state because (this is today's english). You somehow did not undersatnd any of this because I suspect (you do not understand english)
>>57908031
You sound like a massive cuck.
>>57910510
>If you think that condoms constitute a eugenic program
Are you trolling?
They can be used as tools in one. Doesn't make every used condom a tool of some mystical secret government trying to stop ''disabled'' people from reproducing.
It's like asking me if I thought that hammers are weapons than why do people use them for building houses, when I was talking about a guy hammering another ones head in.
>>57910667
>my entire argument has been that countries are the only things that can practice eugenics
>>57910122
>"Country to practice" obviously means things like individual couples choosing gene therapy on their own volition.
You're so backed against the wall you don't even know what you're saying any more
>>57910638
Yep, reforestation initiatives are specifically drafted to select for particular genes. It's right there in the drafts, "make sure only x gene is passed down and y gene isn't". No things like agriculture programs have everything to do with selecting genes for the population. Go look up biopower because it's obvious you don't have the slightest clue what it is
>>57902036
>Is there anything wrong with eugenics?
It causes a lot of human misery for negligible improvements. Not worth it.
>>57910821
>being so autistic you can't read sarcasm
that sentence doesn't make sense as an argument because it isn't a fucking argument, it's be trying to get down to your level of retardation so that you might realize you don't know how the english language works
>>57910821
Honestly, read that whole post again but with the tone of me talking to you like you're a retard. That's how it was intended, and maybe you'll finally understand
>>57910967
That's weak. Surely you could come up with something better.
Your argument went from you knowing what OP meant better than he did, to what counts as eugenics, to wether or not countries practice eugenics, then finally back to what counts as eugenics.
It's been a hell of a ride but I need some sleep. Have a final (You)
>>57910819
>giving condoms to anyone for free
This isn't eugenics, it's population control
>giving free condoms only in poor areas, or only in certain ethnic communities
This starting to sound like a eugenic policy
>only giving free condoms in ethnic areas or impoverished neighbourhoods while limiting their sale in other, nicer communities
This is probably eugenics, or as close as it will get in the modern age.
Just because something limits or promotes fertility does not make it eugenics, it's only if these things are used in conjunction with an outside value system that promotes certain genes over the other (the only institution with these powers is almost always state sanctioned). If you can name one place in the western world where condoms are only given to certain populations and their use is restricted amongst others in the same population, I'll concede condoms as a "eugenic program". Otherwise they are public helath measures intended to reduce sexual diseases and prevent unwanted pregnancies, having nothing to do with selecting for certain traits
>Is there anything wrong with eugenics?
Yes. Humans cannot into selection properly.
You think the selection process will be administered by geneticists on the cutting edge of technology? WRONG!!
The selection process will be done by a government committee of bureaucrats. There will be at least one middle-aged woman named Janice, one man who always wears a woollen sweater and drones on and on, and one person who demands to be the chair because they once sat on a local council.
Ask Hitler
>>57906735
technically we also have a tiny eugenics programm. incest is illegal here wich only makes sense from an eugenic point of view. its not illegal in the majority of countries as far as I know.
>>57909725
no individual freedom to choose only applies to that individual. people dont own the lives of their children, choosing for them to be sick from birth knowingly is immoral. preventing someone from getting sick doesnt mean that persons live wouldnt be worth living if you dont. but it would probably still be better, not worth living is a strong concept. yes some disabilities are not as crippling as others, some might even give unique insight and the ones having them can still live functional lives. but does that apply to all disabilities? what about down syndrom? about the various muscle degenerative diseases? is it really moral to doom people to have disabilities for the sake of diversity and "unique insights"?
We've no reason to oppose eugenics, for our strength itself is a result of it.
The power of imagination we possess came from ancient east Africa on that severe drought happened and only a few families who had enough imagination to store water in a vessel beneath the ground survived ( and became the ancestors of all contemporary Homo-sapiens).
>>57904000
i approve of this
>>57917911
Bloody racist
>>57919822
make every girl look like caro and i support the racism
>>57904258
Are you the rus fetishisht that got obsessed with our jailbait
>>57904000
But anon. Blondes are just for fun
http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/theres-scientific-reason-men-either-brunettes-blondes/949394/
>>57909089
You're retarded. Genetic modification of reproductive organs for some intention is clearly eugenics. Please don't speak on behalf of English speakers Chang.
>>57902036
GOTCHA!
Everyone that isn't Nordic should be murdered
>>57902036
I'm an eugenist. I guess that's because I'm a beta and thus am "obsessed" with good genes.
>>57902036
it doesn't work
peru sterilized natives, yet they are growing
