/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10135878
its considered bad because its immoral, this is psychologically rooted in thousands of years of "standard" ie jewish christian morality in our civilization

the ultimate redpill of morality is that good things can be immoral and bad things can be moral

Because you will never get large-scale consensual compliance, and forcing it on people is trampling on personal right to pick partners, and an affront to personal liberty.

You know, that thing the Enlightenment was about, and the western world has subscribed to since?

I agree that the world would be better if the mentally disabled, crippled and deathly sick weren't allowed to reproduce, but part of being human is the clusterfuck of genetics we have.

>>10135878
Its not, it just scares liberals because their pets are threatened by it.

Because people are choosing what is desirable. If led to its end, humanity becomes formulaic. Just take away all modern medicine and retards and cripples don’t live past three.

>>10135935
More precisely stated, people with better genes will be better prepared to take care of themselves and their loved ones. Politicians, especially socialists, have nothing to offer to those who are healthy and prosperous, so they cannot allow either.

>>10135878
>implying that directing our own evolution is good
>implying eugenics/genetic engineering won't just be used to improve human function in society, not serving human survival as a whole
Even if we simulate nature we will never achieve anything as cruel or as effective as producing successful species

wrong for the state to regulate reproduction

Bump

>>10135878

in my opinion it is more than unfortunate that eugenics is only an option because tyrants had their way for too long.

our genes are neither helped nor healed by the toxic society we are in most cases forced to live in. we are subjected to the most highly convulsing and repugnant environments, poison in our food and water, junk mail through technology and have refused to heed good advice in favour of being the tough guy in the room.

similar to how A.I. is only an option because the people who make it, also made everyone stupid to begin with.

I see their game I know what they're doing and strongly advise against solutions which result from reactions to problems instead of fixing the cause.

>>10137364
I mean eugenics would be solving the cause and not reacting to the problems (disabilities, genetic disorders, etc). Unless you want to argue the cause is whatever induced the genetic disorder in the first place but I hope you are aware most genetic disorders are random or inherited, not environmentally caused.

Id just like to add in too for the thread in general, eugenics honestly was not seen as inhumane until Hitler took it too far. Even Teddy Roosevelt spoke in defense of it once. In certain doses, it would probably be a humane thing to do. For example, is it more humane to let a mom with HIV have a kid that will 100% have HIV, or is it more humane to tell her not to put a kid through all of that and forbid people with HIV from having kids?

It's more complicated than "eugenics means killing everyone but a specific subset of people". You can do the opposite and prevent certain subsets of people from having kids. You dont even need to kill them.

So if I understand, all of you approving of eugenics will all be castrating yourselves for the greater good? Can you live stream it or something?

>>10135878
>Why is the practice of Eugenics considered bad?

It's moral relativism. Classical liberalism is the primary philosophy that unites Western culture. and it states that all humans have a right to individual freedom. Killing or sterilizing someone because of their "bad genes" contradicts this philosophy. However, eugenics is more likely to be embraced in a country like China, which prioritizes the collective over the individual.

>>10135878
Eugenetics are not bad, the way they do it in the past was worng, i mean killing people just based in its race and other characteristic is stupid to be honest.

Future eugenics would just correct genetics errors and even imporve some thing in embryo stage, we already do this with viable offspring in humans but we never have implated this in a rental uterrus.

>>10135878
>Why is the practic of Eugenics considered bad? Immoral yes
You just said it there, it's immoral

>>10137739
Societies opinion on morality changes over time

>the government is allowed to kill you, steralizs you, or take away your liberties despite you not having infringed on anyone's liberty

>Why is it considered bad?

>>10137563
This here: IVF plus genetic screening allows for a form of eugenics that doesn't force some people to not have children. Today we can use it to screen for genetic diseases; as more studies are done correlating IQ, height, personality type, and so on, those could also be selected for. Definitely something the government should look into subsiding, as a healther & higher IQ population would pay more in taxes & use less welfare, easily paying for itself. Of course, as
>>10136073
mentioned, certain sorts of politicians will oppose this because they want a more dependent & controllable population. But if one major country starts doing it, others will have to follow or be left in the dust.

>>10136073
I would argue that a socialist system would work incredibly well under eugenics, better than any other system would.

>>10135878
Who dictates what is good or bad? Who gets culled? Who does the culling?
You'd have better luck creating a program of voluntary sterilization with a significant government stipend for anyone who signs away their reproductive rights.
You're going to see all the short term thinkers and people who need instant gratification lining up around the block for the government gibs. No one is being forced to do it, and any upfront costs are offset by the long term removal of people likely to end up on the bread line.

>>10135878
because it is veiled racism and scientists don't know shit

>>10136073
eugenics is socialism, brainlet. That’s not what I said either faggot, I said that it threatens liberals and their pets (blacks, gays, and women because eugenics is a prod for women that encourages them to be less retarded with sexual selection)
>>10137377
No. Most people wouldn’t be culled by eugenics, just like 40-50% of the population and the overwhelming majority of minorities and interracial people.
>>10137757
Its unlikely that we’ll really have an idea what alleles affect intelligence for decades, at a rigorous enough level for selection to be viable, right now we can identify smart people with tests and heuristics like SAT scores, and then give them monetary incentives to breed. Eugenics will do more for protecting average iq and fertility than anything like increasing iq or robustness. Defecits will more likey be remedied than improvements made.
>>10137818
National socialism, yes.
>>10137834
Please kill yourself brainlet

>>10138332
Wouldn't it make more sense to cull all the white people? Asians and Jews have the brains, blacks have the muscle. We don't need white people for anything, and history shows they are the most warlike group

>>10138379
Ahh, the dog muncher returns. Tell me slit-eyed one. Why is it that chinks, being the most populous race, have produced nothing of value and are only now catching up to whites by destroying everything they can get their hands on and turning their air to acid. Why is it that the chinks, in the infallible wisdom, killed all the birds because they were eating the grains. Only to have a locust plague cause millions to starve. Why is it that they melted down all the metal they could find to make pig iron. Only to find they had no homes. I'll tell you why. It's because they are insects themselves. They follow the horde like the good little bees they are. They need someone to command them or they will be lost in their own primal desire for blood and torture. You only need to see how they treat the dogs they skin, boil and blowtorch alive and the children they run over in the streets and get out and shank for good measure. To understand that they are a lesser race. Devoid of soul and the spark of life which is what leads to innovation.

>>10138391
So you agree we don't need white people?

>>10138476

>>10137373
>most genetic disorders are random or inherited, not environmentally caused.

over what period of time and how do we discuss this with native peoples who were infected by industrialised invaders

species who live in harmony with environment, for example, are not beset with problems eugenics falsely claims to solve at the most superficial level only to render superficial results which do not address the cause and as such the world keeps spinning in its own insanity that a simple concept of root cause problem solving becomes inconvenient to the agenda of profiting and posturing over identity-attached scientific arrogances in lieu of a solid identity structure formed through the adherence to universal law.

>>10135878
It's already happening. Look again.

>>10135878
>Why is the practice of Eugenics considered bad?
Is it?
Last time I checked, the lefties are for abortion.
Most people won't openly admit they are for eugenics because of the bad optics but in practice people are discriminatory-as-fuck when choosing a mate.
It's not like there is a line of women waiting to hook up with downies or cripples.
When you choose a mate based on looks, smarts, success, health, etc., you are implicitly practicing eugenics.

>>10135878
That picture is shit. It’s attempting to redefine natural selection
Ffs how do people miss the easy shit

>>10135878
Because le ebil nazis believed in it so that automatically makes it bad. But for real there is nothing wrong with eugenics, indeed it is more moral to create a society with people genetically predisposed to health and intelligence. Right now humans are de-evolving due to the lack of survival of the fittest that nature forced into our breeding habits. Eugenics should really be a substitute for this.

Oh well, I guess the future of humanity is gonna be split between tards and wranglers. Will be fun at least to see just how fucked up our genetics can really become before society collapses

>>10139085
Degeneration theory was debunked long ago.

>>10139085
Its the """"smart"""" people that need to be wrangled

>>10135911
/thread