[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 285 KB, 1190x1063, 1289744162429.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1281712 No.1281712 [Reply] [Original]

People who supported Eugenics:

Alexander Graham Bell
Theodore Roosevelt
Winston Churchill
William Beveridge
John Maynard Keynes
George Bernard Shaw
H. G. Wells
Sidney Webb
Arthur Balfour

Not to mention intellectuals and influential people outside of western countries.

So, why exactly have we abandoned this great and popular idea altogether?

>> No.1281720

>>1281712
maybe /int/ is more your speed.

Make this a question of literature

>> No.1281745
File: 24 KB, 200x309, Posthuman_future.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1281745

>>1281720
Discuss.

>> No.1281758

>>1281712
Because Eugenics doesn't work and never has?

It's an intractable idealistic pseudoscience based on racism and the fallacy of genetic superiority.

>> No.1281764

>>1281758
> Eugenics doesn't work

wat

Did you seriously just imply that genes are not inherited from one generation to the next or that genes have no effect on human development?

Also >>>/new/

>> No.1281770

>>1281758
this, and because always that tried to apply irl it developed into some of the worst atrocities in human history. Bringing 0 success.

>> No.1281774

>>1281758
>implying eugenics hasn't worked with every domesticated species for thousands of years.
>implying Nazi selection criteria are the only ones applicable to eugenics.

There's a reason retards don't normally breed.

>> No.1281776

>>1281745
Because the gooks and coons are still around?

>> No.1281778

Nazis killed eugenics, but it will see a revival eventually, simply because of how much sense it makes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDFK_jXXQMU

Also lol at the sheeple thinking eugenics must involve killing.

>> No.1281782

Eugenics is not abandoned. You could choose whether to give birth to a retard child or to make an abortion.

>> No.1281805

The essential problem with eugenics is that the Earth is too big, with too many different environments. Even if every person in the world had the exact same DNA-- a wold of clones, if you will-- environmental differences and diet differences will still result in epigenetic variation in morphology, intelligence, and physical ability. Then what?

People who believe in eugenics are boring chess partners. They can never think more than one or two steps ahead.

>> No.1281810

With a marriage of humanism, technology and eugenics the world would become a much better place.

>> No.1281823

With the choices inherent in IVF, I'd say that Eugenics is still around. And a damn good thing too. There are too many retards running around without us adding to the problem.

That said, I only support purging the gene pool of retards and those people so disabled life is not worth living.

>> No.1281842

The retards and disabled will always be in the gene pool. No way to get that completely out of human genetic material.

If anything, we should get rid of all races except for the Jpanese and Chinese. They are the most intelligent by far, and are more capable of living socially than any other race.

>> No.1281843

>>1281805
>Then what?

I fail to see your point. The goal of Eugenics is not genetic identity for everyone. Obviously there are going to be variation whatever you do. But if you can increase the average it's all good.

>> No.1281844

what would be your basis on choosing who would be selected out of the population?

>> No.1281848

>>1281842

>He thinks the Japanese are capable of living socially
>He thinks the vast majority of Chinese aren't fucking morons

>> No.1281849

>>1281844

No need to add central planning to the mix. That's morally shaky ground. Self-selection is enough.

>> No.1281855

>>1281843
This is what I mean by "people who believe in eugenics can't think more than one or two steps ahead" So you increase the average. Then what? Increase it more? Then what?

It's a silly, circular philosophy based on early-ninteenth century science. It's the Creationism of biology.

Total stupidity.

>> No.1281858

>>1281848
> doesn't think the Japanese aren't the most socially capable people in the world

> thinks there's another race with a higer average IQ than the chinkers

>> No.1281859

>>1281855

Yeah, just like performing surgery to remove cancer is stupid.

>> No.1281863

>>1281858

>Thinks the Japanese aren't a bunch of passive-agressive 12-year-olds who kill themselves or each other over tiny things.

>Thinks the comparatively high IQ of Chinese people known to the West isn't due to weight of numbers and nothing more.

If the Chinese were so bright, how come they never invented glass?

>> No.1281870

>>1281863
the chinese are actually intelligent.
>>1281858
the japanese are not the most socially capable people in the world you weaboo, do you find panties in vending machines anywhere else?

>> No.1281873

>>1281859
lolno

>> No.1281875

>>1281870

The smart ones are very, very intelligent. But that's due to the education system and competitive culture, and those are due to weight of numbers.

>> No.1281877

>>1281863
>If the Chinese were so bright, how come they never invented glass?

IDK, I guess they were too busy inventing gunpowder.

>> No.1281880

>>1281863
Wait, wait. Either you don't know how averages work, or you're implying china is composed mainly of morons... a few million Hawking-tier geniuses walking (wheeling?) around to balance it out. If you accept the average IQ figures, then you can't have the hundreds of millions of morons without tens of millions of geniuses.

>> No.1281881

itt: we try to sell clichés as science

>> No.1281906

>>1281712

Great idea, but then how do you know you're going to make the cut?

>> No.1281909

>>1281855

There is no then what, that's the goal. Unless you think more smart and smarter people is not a legitimate goal, of course. You might as well hit yourself on the head until you're a vegetable in that case.

>> No.1281910

>>1281712
notice how they're all from the same fucking time period. The late 19th century, Darwinian evolution was becoming mainstream knowledge, but not understood yet by people who aren't biologists. They exhibit the classic modernist ideology, the advancement of man towards some end some perfection, whether it be literary, artistic or in this case biological. Its the same damn shit you see in the modern period.

All the great thinkers of the renaissance thought we should create the philosopher's stone.
So, why exactly have we abandoned this great and popular idea altogether?

>> No.1281913

>>1281858
> thinks there's another race with a higer average IQ than the chinkers

Jews are like 10 points above them bro. Sorry to ruin your weeaboo master race fantasies.

>> No.1281920

>>1281712
Because pragmatism has been lost to 'yuman rights' bullshit.

>> No.1281930

>>1281712
Are you honestly arguing that there is a phenomenon more pragmatic than natural Darwinian selection?

>> No.1281932
File: 41 KB, 506x350, AceVentura.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1281932

Most people go most of their lives with a huge amount of genetic potential wasted because they prefer to watch pictures of cats from the internet instead of doing or learning things.

>implying the government can make us better through artificial selection when they can't even make people use the potential they already have

>> No.1281939

>>1281932

Why the fuck would you involve government?

>> No.1281943

>>1281939
how else would you force people to decide who is going to breed with who? in a street gang?

>> No.1281947

>>1281939
A eugenics program must fundamentally "statist".

>> No.1281949

>>1281930
There is no natural selection in human society.
See the breeding habits of chavs, for example.

>> No.1281954

>>1281949
of course there is natural selection, don't be a retard, you cannot stop selective forces, just because you don't necessarily agree with them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

>> No.1281956

>>1281949

Unless Chavs breed with Stephen Hawkings, there obviously is. Populations are already self-selecting to a pretty high degree: chavs mate amongst themselves, smart (a proxy for intelligence and important factor for breeding is wealth, btw) people tend to breed amongst themselves.

>> No.1281958

>>1281943
nerds with baseball bats, it can't possibly fail

>> No.1281959

Chinese are just mindless machines doing the white mans bidding or copying his designs. (see every Chinese defense vehicle, ever)

Whites are creative (its how we beat out these less forgiving races), merciful, intelligent & responsible for the greatest art in the world (hey remember we are still in /lit/ here!).

>> No.1281961

>>1281959

I thought /lit/ was a bunch of liberal fags. Why else would they hate A__ R___?

>> No.1281966

>>1281961
>Why else would they hate A__ R___?
terrible writer & terrible philosopher.

>> No.1281972

>>1281939
how else would you implement it?

>> No.1281974

>>1281961

Every single intelligent and/or educated person hates Ayn Rand. Even extreme-right libertarians such as myself. Her philosophy is shoddy and only appeals to people without the (few) critical thinking skills necessary to tear it apart. I don't think I need to comment on her fiction.

>> No.1281975

>>1281972

Voluntarily. Let the retards do what they wish. You don't need to go around neutering people in order to better the gene pool ON AVERAGE.

>> No.1281981
File: 31 KB, 363x310, 1287609608637.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1281981

>>1281974
>Intelligent and/or educated
>Extreme-right libertarian

>> No.1281984

>>1281975
you mean like choosing who you breed with and if you want to breed at all?

>> No.1281987

>>1281975

You stupid fucker! What have you done? We have eugenics now!

>> No.1282021

>>1281961
Rand is among the most thinly veiled of extreme narcissists. Her Philosophy is one of self-glorification at all costs rather than self-improvement.

Speaking of Self-glorification, that is all that Eugenics is. Modern studies show that not only is the I.Q. test unreliable, but a base I.Q. of 120 can easily outperform 180+ simply through hard work and dedication to a specific task. As far as physicality, genetic mutation is shown to increase exponmentialy as the members of a species become genetically similar. Meaning that even if Eugenics were implemented it would be rendered meaningless in a few short generations simply be mutation.

>> No.1282036

>>1282021
>Modern studies show that not only is the I.Q. test unreliable, but a base I.Q. of 120 can easily outperform 180+ simply through hard work and dedication to a specific task.

Even assuming that that is true, it's completely irrelevant. Intelligence is to at least some degree inherited. That's all you need.

>> No.1282043

>>1282036
okay but why is extreme intelligence better than say moderate intelligence?

>> No.1282047

once we have mathematical proof which genes are most valuable, someone will take advantage of the new master social hierarchy and shit will definitely not go wrong. i don't like the idea of killing an entire group of people no matter how inferior, but we didn't nip it in the bud when we had the chance

>> No.1282045

>>1281954
>>1281956
Retards.

>> No.1282051

>>1282036
It is true.

And intelligence is a subjective trait, and much less an inherited one, which is my entire point.

>> No.1282054

>>1282051

So you argument is..."lol my definition of 'intelligence' is different from everyone else's therefore you are wrong"? OK then, let's make it objective: the ability to solve IQ-test-style problems is partly an inherited trait. This ability is a proxy for what is commonly understood to be intelligence. You cannot possibly disagree.

>> No.1282075

>>1282054
Sure, but why is"the ability to solve IQ-test-style problems is partly an inherited trait" potentially useful, and sufficiently useful that we should risk decreasing genetic variation, which is inherently valuable, just to attempt to maximize it.

>> No.1282085

>>1281858
If they're so good, how come we're the ones who built nukes and blasted their shitty island?

>> No.1282105

>>1282054
My point is that intelligence is subjective inherently, and that it can only be quantified in the most vague terms, like IQ tests. Basing a program on that is foolish. And I know that I am not alone in that opinion. lol.

Anyway, I agree that genetic variation is one of the most valuable traits mankind has. To put it another way: it takes all types to make a better world. By contrasting our different ideas and talents to one another, we gain a sense of individuality, and this is what allows for innovation. Conformity, be it genetic or social, is the antithesis of what is needed to make a better world or society.

>> No.1282121

I think it's a silly idea just because the people who formulate/run these programs would almost inevitably be biased to see their own strong-points as the most beneficial and therefore the ones that should be used for selection. As a good example, many of the people who debate Eugenics are intellectuals (as we are here, at least culturally compared to most of the world), as such they value intelligence. But intelligence is probably a terrible selection criterion just because it comes with a whole bunch of other baggage (e.g. tendencies towards over-analysis, introspection, depression, anti-sociability) which would make the world a worse place.

>> No.1282128
File: 35 KB, 500x501, everyonehasarighttohisownopinion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1282128

>>1282105
>it takes all types to make a better world.

Could you be a more stereotypical retarded hippie? Until someone with an IQ of 50 discovers a cure or treatment for a major disease, I'm going to reserve judgment on that position.

>> No.1282181

>>1282128
I do try, thank you for noticing. Oh, and while people with IQs of 50 or so have not contributed to medicine, there are Autistic people that can play classical music better than you or I ever could. So, since the world is such a complex place, it is easy to overlook valuable skills when you are trying to create a Eugenic Paradigm.

>> No.1282194

>>1282181

>Implying there's no difference between high- and low-functioning autistics.

>Implying someone who isn't a drooling retard could never practice a whole bunch and then be good at music.

>> No.1282211

>>1282128
Yeah, don't let the hippies argument distract you though, genetic variation is necessary from a biological perspective, otherwise we'll be devastated if not wiped out from plague or famine or what not. Evolution can only occur by selection within a varied gene-pool. To adapt to new circumstances we need plenty of genetic spread. Otherwise we'll go the way of the "Gros Michel" banana.

>> No.1282229

>>1282128
99% of the world has never done such a thing. 99% of the world is useless?

>> No.1282230

>>1282211

I completely agree, but what you're saying is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Nobody is advocating using the sperm of the single most intelligent man we can find to impregnate ALL women, or anything close to it.

>> No.1282236

>>1282230
So, its even if its not just 1 person, its still a decrease in the gene pool. You can try to breed a dog, with a different shape of ears, but by the time you get them there wind up with hip dysplasia and heart murmurs.

>> No.1282244

>>1282194
>>1282211
lol Aren't we taking ourselves a bit too seriously here? It is just that from a Utilitarian standpoint, I can see no way that eugenics can function. From a more strictly Moral standpoint I find the idea abhorrent. From a Scientific standpoint, it is a system that is bound to fail as genetic mutation effects the system, and the loss of genetic variation constricts the species. There are simply no viable arguments to support the idea of eugenics on any level.

As I said earlier, Eugenics is simply a form of self-glorification, a trick of psychology used to buffer your own insecurities.

But, hey, don't let my arguments distract you.