Do you agree with this statement?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00xegtA-qMk
>>29781506
Sure. Whatever. I just want a fucking gf. I don't care about reproducing. Mass immigrations or eugenics breeding programs or in vitro fertilisation or whatever, I don't care where babies are gonna be coming from in the future.
no I want to fug every cute girl
20% of men impregnate 80% of the women in the world
this has been scientifically proven
On one condition; all that do not reproduce are issued high performance sex-bots.
humans aren't as simple as that, anyone who thinks like this is an autistic virgin
i'm an autistic virgin, but i don't think like this
it would be a hard policy to enforce long term and probably has significantly less biological basis than whoever's idea it is thinks that it does
>>29781506
the first part
the idea only that beauty of women should be allowed to reproduce is actual objectification, not tumblr shit. best men and best women is better, but the decision making process cannot be trusted into the hands of a government, who would inevitably use the power to breed submission and cause irreversible tyranny. There is no way to exercise this ideal apart from a government, so there is no way for it to work.
>>29782972
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0GAUeMz6fM
>>29781506
It depends on the grounds that we're speaking of.
Politically/socially in most first world countries it's a right to breed. We've created societies where survival of the fittest doesn't really matter. Being the most physically fit won't make you an automatic bread winner nor will being the most intelligent. Very average and sub-average people have been made capable of breeding and at this point it will take a long time to undo this and change our ways as a civilization.
Biologically speaking it's a "right" as in you have the "right" to attempt to breed. But there are no real "rights" in nature and it's dependent on your abilities to survive as an organism.
So in our current first world society: yes it has been made a right to breed and unless drastic changes are made it'll remain that way.
In nature: "yes"
>>29781506
physical looks are inferior to superior genotypes
an ugly person could have near perfect genes when it comes to family history for illnesses and diseases.
physical looks are a manifestation of genes that is usually somewhat random. you're combining the looks of at least 4 people for the creation of one genotype, and physical features not expressly masculine or feminine are usually not highly sex linked.
>>29781506
Yes
But it should focus more on beautiful people breeding more and ugly people breeding less. Looks matter and are a good way to judge someone's worth. Ugly people are stupid, lazy, violent, diseased, and worthless. Beautiful people are intelligent, motivated, peaceful, health, and valuable
>>29783025
>>29783025
this video looks stupid as fuck and is rosseau's wet dream
what's actually gonna happen is that everyone is gonna live in a nanny superstate where thinking will be a crime
>>29781506
Wow this fucking vid , I really hope there aren't a lot of people who buy into this horshit
1. ''Traditional women'' Don't make me fucking laugh , you think just because a bitch is wearing country girl clothes and wants to stay at home she's good?
Fuck no she's still a woman, therefore a whore.
2. Why does he put ''beauty'' but then say women should pick the ''honorable'' men , is this implying ugly beasts like us can't have honor?
3. This ''reproduction is not a human right'' idea , who is gonna enforce it? The state? Don't make me laugh you fucking simpleton.
And who would even define and evaluate the population as ''worthy'' , and how could you make sure they're unbiased?
This whole vid is a clusterfuck .
btw aren't ''traditional women'' christian? Wouldn't denying people to have families be against that?
I may agree with the first half, but it really depends on what you mean by 'best men'
I disagree with 'most beautiful', since it could imply a real idiot bimbo. Instead it should also say 'best women' where 'best is defined as above.
No, that's fucking bullshit. With that statement, you're trying to apply superficial and "advanced" thinking to the act of breeding, which is something that we, as animals, all need to do, and exist to do. It's like saying that taking a shit needs to be regulated.
>>29783280
Never thought about it like this. Indeed, good health is vastly more important for the progression of the species than good looks.
>>29781506
yet everybody and anybody does it
this faggot is not the arbiter for human reproduction, people are going to do whatever they want.
FACE
Wouldn't be sustainable population wise, also we need to have at least some plebs. But I'm all for eugenics to some degree, there's no real reason why someone with severe diseases that will most likely be inherited should be able to reproduce.
>>29781506
Even if your aim was to foster a particular aesthetic, the notion is flawed because traits that look beautiful in women look effeminate in their sons, and likewise with men and their daughters looking masculine. And that's not even getting into the notion of what, outside of beauty, makes someone "best" and how easily we could lose advantageous traits because one society's narrow definition of desirability excluded them. Or how narrowing the gene pool diminishes the resilience of the species.
