/sci/ - Science & Math

bump, want to hear whether I'm a terrible person or not for thinking we should kill retarded babies.

>I troll u lol

I think we should kill retarded babies and stuff.

I'm dead serious too.

Eugenics is not a guarantee that we will be any more fit as a species. It's a cover, in fact, for people who want to rid themselves of specific "inferior" types. How do you even classify "inferior" without A) getting into grey areas and how do you B) enforce a program which is fundamentally inhumane?

By stating that human value is only in what one person is capable of producing for the rest of the world, we deny the value of being human at all. We deny the value of existing as an entity, a causally observant actor in this universe. To deny anyone their specific existence based on traits you happen to favor is barbaric, and you're exactly the type of person we SHOULD be eradicating.

Line up on the left.

As long as it isn't based on race and we have a more accurate way of determining intelligence, then I'm all for it.

I agree. The thing is, most people who say they agree here wont ever say it to a real live persons face. I did so in the past (and keep on doing), do you?

EUGENICS? HERPL DERPL DURP DURP I CANT THINK FOR MY SELF. YOU ARE HITLER

1. read books of Known Space
2. come to the part about the Fertility Laws
3. come to /sci/ and post about it

>>1474953
This, but also
>>1474949
this.

Basically, Im for it, but Im also scared of getting killed for being a lazy asshole lurking on 4chan

Retards are nearly always sterile and if they're not they don't breed.

Why is letting them live a problem?

>>1474948
for some of the seriously retarded, this is actually a kind of relief from the hardship they would have to suffer when they grow up.

it's easy for liberals and "humanitarians" to say blah blah everyone is equal etc but in the end it's the retarded people themselves that have to suffer every minute they are alive.

I'm all for it. Alot of trolls here will disagree though.

>>1474949
op here.
I'm not talking about just below average intelligence or shit like that, I'm saying visibly deformed or retarded people reproduce and then bring those genetics to another generation, each generation the number of people with the genetic defect increase. I'm talking about Congenital disorders, retarded people and disabled people who need constant support all day long by another person aren't contributing to society whatsoever, they're costing taxpayer money, introducing bad genes to the genepool if they have kids. It'll have possibility to be abused though.

LOL YOURE EVIL OP
HITLER ALERT HIT ALERT
OP IS HITLER
EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL

>>1474980
I wonder why...

In theory I'm for eugenics, but in reality I know people would just use it to wipe out gay people, races, etc. It'd be nice if we could just use it to avoid really bad things like Down Syndrome and Anencephaly, but I know people are too hateful to stop there.

>>1474926
Greeks and Romans used to consider the northernfolk "inferior barbarians".

Too bad they did not proceed into eradicating them and save the world from eugenists.

You're evil OP. You should see the light of religion and peace with God. Repent from your evil deeds.

>>1475009
>implying eugenics is a northern idea

Eugenics was shitty back then and people know better today. You want to remove the retarded from the gene pool? Alright. So .. how retarded do you have to be? Downsyndrom enough? Even Downs comes in several different types. Some guys with Downsyndrom even finished university. Where do you draw the line? Unfit? Unprofitable? Unable to care about himself? Unwanted?

Too much shit, brah. I still would feel better if certain folks couldn't reproduce, but this shit can backfire way too fast.

>>1475019
oh look, it's the slippery slope argument guy. you're late

>>1475011
In the bible(new testament at least), We're told that our bodies are temples of god and to take care of them. God won't be happy if his temple can't wipe his own ass.

>>1475030
We cannot use science to do it. God does not approve of such villainy. We should burn them instead.

>>1474926
> I read a story a couple of weeks ago about some woman with a genetic condition that made her 3ft tall with all kind of organ problems, she had 6 or 7 kids and 5 of them had the same disorder, how can that shit be legal?
Boy won't you feel dumb when you're dying of an Ebola/HIV hybrid and she has the immunity.

>>1475015
>implying it wasn't Germans and Norwegians those who practiced it

For the record, eugenics doesn't mean we need to kill of all under-worth people.
I say, there should be several category for this:
Category A: Self-Providing, Fitting, Helping
People who can take care of themselves (and thus are not a burden to society), are healthy enough to not be a burden on society, have achieved something in life. Prime breeding category. First class citizens.
Category B:Self-Providing, Fitting
People who can take care of themselves and are healthy but have not yet achieved anything in life. Secondary breeding category, still first class citizens.
Category C: Burdens
People who cant take care of themselves and are thus a burden but not because sick (for example homeless people) or sick people who can still take care of themselves (for example lightly handicapped people). Not allowed to breed, but are given a chance to better themselves. If the fail, they are killed.
Class F: Executable
Sick people who are a burden on society. Retards, Heavily handicapped (torso people) etc

It should be pointed out that one can bounce between category's but category F is permanent for obvious reasons.

>>1474985
>each generation the number of people with the genetic defect increase
You have such a crude understanding of genetics and 'fitness.'

OK, so you want to say that the inferior types are not fit for this world, and are capable of breeding their inferiority. However, a lot of what they produce genetically are exaggerated traits of what a large sum of people already have lying dormant within their genes without showing the characteristics. Do you start sterilizing the perfectly 'fit' people as well to reduce the risk that unfit people will be born?

That's an awful lot more than you imagine. In fact, you'd probably be included in the sterilization. How would that make you feel? Are you willing, yourself, to be part of the 'cure'? I doubt you'd put your money where your mouth is, but in case you are:
http://www.genome.gov/19516567

When you find out you carry certain markers for genes which are detrimental, do the right thing and get a vasectomy. Until you do that your words are nothing but hollow musings of a misanthropic ninny.

>>1474980

completely, completely false. retards do breed . . oftne with each other. which makes the problem even worse.

the government will impliment eugenics eventually in an uncover way. the American government already is;

health insurance policy > no healthcare for poorer people > poorer people (who have shit genes, due to modern day natural selection) are more likely to die.

That's why i feel governments are alreayd heading towards eugenics. And bravo i say

>>1475019
May be not the most creative argument, but it's the most effective.

>>1475040
oh heil ther...

>>1475045
Sorry to break it to you but I'm perfect.

>>1474949
>Crowdism, liberalism, leftism.
No good sir, you are the one we need to kill.

>>1475054
The funniest part is, I'm a Jew. Oh, the sweet sweet irony

>>1475040
>Category C: Burdens
>People who cant take care of themselves and are thus a burden but not because sick (for example homeless people) or sick people who can still take care of themselves (for example lightly handicapped people). Not allowed to breed, but are given a chance to better themselves. If the fail, they are killed.
>Class F: Executable
>Sick people who are a burden on society. Retards, Heavily handicapped (torso people) etc

sorry but most people agree that's your kind that must be executed

>>1475057
Perfect for what? If we're just getting rid of sick people and you develop something later, are you willing to enter the gas chamber on your own? Think about what you would be going through. This is what you'd be subjecting others to.

If you can't muster that empathy, then you are inhuman, possibly a psychopath, and are not worthy to live.

Any which way you have it, I could make sure to have you in that gas chamber, in spite of your claims of fitness, I can set the conditions for what constitutes fitness against your favor.

>>1475068

yeah by your rules we'll have to ban everyone on 4chan from breeding.

Lulz . . . like any of us could get laid anyway

>>1474980
tell that to forest gump

Natural selection will prevent retards from reproducing anyway. Social Darwinism is shit, being that Darwin was a pacifist.

>>1475068
You know, If you look at the big picture you see we are better off with this system. Lot's of times sacrifices need to be made for the bettering of the human race. We make tough choices daily, as a society, but because of a myriad of reasons we choose to tackle some and avoid others. For example fascism and eugenics are both not tackled because they connect in our society to Nazi Germany. If it was a new and fresh idea, maybe we could actually have an unbiased discussion about it

>>1475127
>implying natural selection exists in today's society

We need artificial selection.

>>1475169
>implying lawnmower

sure is July in here

>want to hear whether I'm a terrible person or not for thinking we should kill retarded babies.

No, you're not a terrible person, OP. You're just irresponsible and really stupid, like all kids

Retarded babies don't breed. Downy babies can't breed, and this is true of many severe birth defects. Even ignoring the genetic nature of retardation, it's not obvious that retardation is bad. There have been retarded children and adults throughout history, and most have done useful work while they were alive.

Enjoy your gas chamber, etc....

>>1475064
יהודי?

>>1475089
>Perfect for what?
sucking cawck

>>1475245
>durrhurrtrolu

>>1475255
לא סתם יהודי, ישראלי. צחוקים, הא?

>>1475095
isn't sexual selection majestic?

>>1475040
Alphas
Betas
Gammas
Deltas
Epsilons

You're retarded.

Getting a little brave new world up in here.

>>1475135
We are having an unbiased discussion about it. My mind is not tainted by the stains of the past, but by imagining the human factor at work. See, our fitness is only part of the picture. There is no guarantee that artificially selecting for traits we favor now will be the best for future circumstances.

Also, how about we stop being selfish pricks and denying others the right to life based on what they take from society. How about what they give to a family? Despite their shortcomings, they are loved. You wouldn't just be eliminating a thoughtless empty shell, you'd be destroying that person along with those who care about them. You'd be dashing the hopes of mothers.

Is the human toll really worth an unguaranteed chance of improved fitness, or minor financial gains?

>>1474949


this /thread

Eugenics are hilarious. Puny humans don't know which genes are actually advantageous. Selecting genes based on artificial grounds would lead to genetic defects. Only the true forces of evolution by natural selection know what's best for the human race.

>>1475296
I really need to get around to reading Brave New World, 'cus I don't understand WTF you're talking about

>>1475301
First of all, it obviously is as your first reaction was to play the Nazi card.
Second, Artificial selection paired with genetic engineering and cyber-augmentation of the human body can prepare us for anything as a species not to talk about technology that can help us without messing around with our gene pool.
Third, war also destroys peoples lives yet we readily go to war when the need (or profit) presents itself. We (relatively) easily go to war because we are less biased about it.

>>1475356
>natural selection in modern society

I LOL, BRO I LOL HARD

>>1475366
>First of all, it obviously is as your first reaction was to play the Nazi card.
You must have me confused with someone else. I know it's hard to realize this but 'Anonymous' can be more than one person.

>>1475356
partly agree

discussing eugenics when we have only just discovered epigenetics and haven't even agreed what the "superior traits" are is plainly retarded...

oh wait... it's worse than retarded... it's political

>>1475366
>We (relatively) easily go to war because we are less biased about it.
No, it's because we can measure the effectiveness of going to war and weigh it against the human toll. We cannot do the same for environmental fitness.

>>1475301

>>There is no guarantee that artificially selecting for traits we favor now will be the best for future circumstances.

It will never be beneficial for humanity to propagate traits that make people retarded, crippled, and a burden on society.

>>Despite their shortcomings, they are loved. You wouldn't just be eliminating a thoughtless empty shell, you'd be destroying that person along with those who care about them. You'd be dashing the hopes of mothers.

>>Is the human toll really worth an unguaranteed chance of improved fitness, or minor financial gains?

The culture of coddling and taking care of the retarded and crippled from birth has been ingrained in our society due to rampant liberalism. Mothers do not care for their diseased spawn out of love, they care for them out of shame and fear of penalty.

Liberal here, kill the ones with inferior genes/don't let them breed

>>1475401
>Mothers do not care for their diseased spawn out of love, they care for them out of shame and fear of penalty.
Bold assertions. I assume you're speaking from experience on this one.

>>1475383
Well sorry, Its hard to tell you politically correct hippies apart

>>1475383
>I know it's hard to realize this but 'Anonymous' can be more than one person.
>Anonymous' can be more than one person
and when since we judge anons by their sayings same opinion = samefags

you stormfag should get over it already
human-eugenics are a political position and not a form of science
contemporary eugenics only work for making more efficient milk-producing cow breeds

>>1475428
>Obviously retard
>Afraid of eugenics

The best you can do in today's climate is probably subsidize people with favorable traits to breed

>>1475039
>implying Germany didn't have to invade Norway

>>1475401
>retarded, crippled, and a burden on society

you are a fag

I'm all for euthanasia on retards, and definitely would say it in public, given the opportunity and relevance of conversation.

>>1475441
>obviously retard

NO U

>>1475446
>> Implying Hawking is retarded.
Also, Obviously this categories are very sketchy.
One would need something that is waaaaaay more in depth to actually implement eugenics. For example, accounting for savants and such.
This is just an example in the general spirit of the system.

>>1475446

Stephen Hawking isn't retarded and he's not a burden on society. He is crippled only due to a sickness which he had no control over. He wasn't born a paraplegic.

>>1475462
>implying he is not crippled
>implying eugenics do not count in generic defects

>>1475446
>wounded by accident
>not a genetic defect

I'M GOING TO CALL EUGENICS BAD BY PROPOSING TO KILL AN INTELLIGENT MAN

GUYS I'M COOL RIGHT?

>He is crippled only due to a sickness which he had no control over.

are you sure that his sickness isn't due to genetic factors?

>>1475447
I'm all for euthanasia on illiterate, fat teenagers, and definitely would say it in public, given the opportunity and relevance of conversation.

>>1475272
כן
תביא MSN יא פאגוט

>>1475480
You'd euthanize yourself? A worthy sacrifice, it is for the betterment of the species after all.

>>1475481
אני באמת אהיה פאגוט אם אני אביא לאנשים בפורצ'אן את המסן שלי.

>>1475462
Why can't you see that on the most basic level eugenics dehumanizes everyone equally? From those in charge of making the decision to those affected and even those who wouldn't otherwise be affected. When you give a committee (a group of people) regulations which make it possible to treat other people as breeding stock, herded en masse to their slaughter or out to pasture, you forfeit your own absolute freedom of conscience. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not down with exchanging that for the supposed benefits it would do us. Not many people would be. Your system, if it was ever adopted on a wider scale than the picometer of your grey matter, would summarily collapse as people fought against you.

>>1475480

Why do they have to be fat?

Only people against eugenics, are the fools envious of their superiors. Which is... mostly everyone.

>>1475490
We'll eventually become emotionless machines anyway. I'll pass on retaining my "humanity" in favor of being inferior.

>>1475474
>wounded by accident
way to show how ignorant you are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Illness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis

>>1475489
תוסיף אותי אם ככה.
a1379001@bofthew.com

>>1475494
said the neckbeard in 4chan

>>1475501

He got a disease. Unless he tried to get it, it's accidental.

>>1475490
I actually though I was talking to an intelligent debate partner until you resorted to just calling me stupid. But who am I kidding, this is 4chan.
I'll address the smart part of your post though:
Dehumanizing in this case is making someone less then human. Yes, it dehumanizes the target and yes it also changes the supporters but I say it changes them for the better. It Super humanizes them, if you will.

>>1475446
>Stephen Hawkin
>retarded, crippled, and a burden on society

>retarded
no
>crippled
yes
>burden on society
no

Your argument is invalid.

>>1475494
Yet here all the arguments for eugenics are getting ripped to shreds and not a single counterpoint can be made...

>>1475500
>We'll eventually become emotionless machines anyway.
Ya think? Does having a lack of emotions enable one to do anything they please?
> I'll pass on retaining my "humanity" in favor of being inferior.
I don't think you have to wait.

>>1475525

>>Yet here all the arguments for eugenics are getting ripped to shreds and not a single counterpoint can be made...

Hardly the case.

>>1475522
>burden on society
define which society

U.S.A
Canada
Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
South Korea
Best Korea
???

>>1475536
First you need to define burden. Normally this is done in monetary terms and Hawking is quite wealthy enough to pay his own way. As for society: only retards believe "society" exists.

>>1475529
>Hardly the case.
yes, since many anons say so in /sci/ while most part of the academic community does not even want to hear about it makes it true...

Steven Hawking is a PRIME example of someone who should be culled. His illness is genetic, much like whichever retard in here claimed it was an accident. NO. It is a genetic disorder, you fucking idiot.

>>1475540
>As for society: only retards believe "society" exists.
solipsism?

>>1475543
>while most part of the academic community do not want to endanger their standing their respective communities by flirting with realism

FTFY

>>1475544
>>Steven Hawking is a PRIME example of someone who should be culled.
You would throw away extensive scientific insight over genetics? It's not like he's reproduced or anything.

But then, there's something to be said for those who would deny others even a chance over some perceived "biological purity" that can never e achieved.

>>1475516
I don't have to resort to calling you stupid. Your words do that well enough for me. You're also under the impression that I'm calling you stupid because I'm losing the debate... Ha!

>I say it changes them for the better. It Super humanizes them, if you will.
My point all along has been: you don't know that, there is no way of knowing that, and it's not worth the human cost (nearly complete loss of autonomy of the self.)

I'd like to add to those points one that was alluded to earlier: that nature does well enough on her own to fix the mistakes and there is no need for human beings to enhance this process.

>>1475543
>most part of the academic community does not even want to hear about it makes it true...

Eugenics was pretty popular in the academic community before the modern culture of shame and liberalism made it impossible to even discuss.

>>1475544
they probably confuse him with that Superman guy due to all their Übermensch mumblings ...

>>1475544
>culled
>reduce genetic diversity of a species
>lose knowledge of whatever genetic influences caused him to become so intelligent

I would prefer sterilisation and to have the genetic code taken and stored.

>>1475553
>>1475544

samefag

>>1475555
ZOMG!!1

IT'S A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY AS ALWAYS!!11

>>1475555
It was popular way back before genetics was truly understood. Now we know it's worthless.

>>1475565
What?

>>1475563
A liberal conspiracy? Probably not. It's certainly a result of the rise of hard left political parties and politicians though. Don't forget most of the news media as well, which has pretty demonstrable liberal biases.

Maybe be could just implement a system whereby people with inheritable (i.e. genetic) disabilities would be disallowed from reproduction. This way, they still get to live their lives and even have sex, but they can't pass their shitty genes on to the next generation.

Eventually they all die and life is good.

>>1475555
No, it fell out of favor because people realized it was bound to be ineffectual, unenforceable and inhumane. No liberalism or shame involved.

I don't fully understand if the OP has a basic understanding of heredity or genetics in general. "retarded" people don't come from a long line of "retarded" relatives, they come from "seemingly normal, healthy" people. Just killing the retards or forcibly keeping them from having children isn't going to cut it.

Here's a scenerio where "smart" eugenics is in play: An able-bodied, mentally-capable couple gives birth to a child with (down's syndrome, born with mental, physical defects of some kind, etc), which happens, after having two children who are able-bodied/mentally-capable just like the parents. you would not only have to get rid of that baby, but also get at the root of the "problem," the parents and for good measure it would be best to get rid of the siblings and possibly extended family too, for possiblity that they could be carrying the genes that could produce "tem retard babies" or at the very least curtail their mate selection so that the chances of producing a "defect baby" is sufficantly diminished. Basically we'd probably have to do that with almost everyone with in the population and have the powers that be determine who we should produce babies with as a liability of producing "retard babies" as so of you put it, and being a "strain" on "our resources" and "fucking up the gene pool."

>>1475573
Reality has a liberal bias. You sound American.

>>1475583
seconded

I don't think it is right to kill people for any reason.
However, fining people who knowingly reproduce with a genetic disorder, and rewarding people who don't would work fine.

This is a morality thread, not a science thread.

Get this shit off my board and take it to /r9k/ or /b/

>>1474926

we should test the fetus for any genetic abnormalities, and abort it.


like abort the 5 kids that were retarded and let the normal ones be birthed.

its not rocket science.

>>1475582
>>1475574 here
Like I said, only those with inheritable disabilities would need to be "treated". I suppose, however, you're right: it is impractical.

Methinks the shallow white supremacist wannabes who support eugenics are the prime candidate, ironic, I know.

>>1475582
also down's is a trisomy which most probably has nothing to do with the gene pool but it's more like a semi-random occurence (with external factors increasing the probability to happen)

>>1475583
>Reality has a liberal bias

>>1475607
At what point do you "treat" them, before someone is born that expresses the illness or the someone who has it?

And at what point do you consider the disease worthy of treatment? The only reasonable option is to research genetic therapy to correct it before someone is born, not deny someone the ability to reproduce.

The problem with eugenics is we have no way of classifying inferior. For example, the tard in my picture might be considered a genius in some cultures. Killing people like him would violate human rights.

>>1475582

You are very wrong. Things like Down's syndrome are genetic mutations. Mutations are caused by a variety of things and anyone could have a child with a genetic mutation.

Killing parents who have retarded children is an exceptionally foolish idea. One would essentially be killing people randomly. I suggest you read up on genetic mutations to gain a better understanding of them.

>>1475616
>bet you did not know Nickolson is a liberal

>>1475583
>Reality has a liberal bias

HAHAHAAHAHAH

You must have missed the ENTIRE pathway of our evolution. Kill, Murder, Rape. SUCCEED IN STRENGTH. We butchered our way to the top of the food chain, obviously we all love eachother?

>>1475606
Do you know what recessive genes are?

Say a man carries the defective gene for cystic fibrosis. He then marries a woman who also carries the defective gene. The two then have four children. Statistically, 1 of them gets cystic fibrosis, one of them is not affected at all, and two of them are carriers. If those two then mate with another carrier and produce offspring, the same thing happens.

It's not good enough to just kill the one that is affected because you can also be a carrier of the recessive gene.

>>1475628
I bet you didn't know that I've never heard of a person called Nickelson

>>1475629
That has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism.

>>Violence is the answer
You sound Neoconservative.

>>1475617
You're right. We should be looking at gene therapy for this kind of thing.

>>1475629
>applying to natural selection a purpose

>>1475643
Sure is summertime in here...

>>1475068
>Homeless... killed? What is this?

Obviously Eugenics are flawed beyond repair and you'd be pretty much doing Hitler's job except you would be replacing the Jews with homeless people in your ovens.

>>1475652

nigga please

>>1475656
Homeless = lazy dumbfucks
Jews = Race/Religion

There's a big difference, summerfag.

>>1475652
I'm with this guy (who is probably also >>1475629).

>>1475632

and the retard will get aborted again, they may be carriers but since its recessive its not expressed, no problem...

also

in after gene therapy, just splice it out. ffs!

its not rocket science.

>>1475661
define lazy

try to link it to genetic factors

>>1475661

Jews are not supposed to save nonjews being carried away by a stream or just drowning, even if the non jew offers them money :D

>>1475674
They are also not always lazy.

It works like this:
>Don't want to be strain on parents any more
>Leave home, try to get a job
>Don't have anywhere to live
>Need an address to get a job
>Don't have an address, can't get a job
>Don't have a job, can't get an address
>Don't want to or can't live with family members
>Fucked

the whole missed point in this thread is:

Who Decides? Who gets to decide who lives and who dies? The government? Some oligarchy of professors and postdocs?

Why don't we just let evolution happen. It's going to happen no matter what.

>>1475696
>Why don't we just let evolution happen.
>Why don't we just let disabled people die.

>>1475704
sexual selection

it still works just fine, but apparently not for you

It's tiem, 404 this shit.

HEY BLACKIE STEP INTO MY OVEN BECAUSE UR DIFFRNT AND I DONT LIKE THAT

>>1475721

If you disagree with a thread or have no intention on contributing/seeing anymore contributions then sage the thread, you fucking simpleton.

>>1475696
Uhm, because we don't let it happen. Modern medicine > natural selection. We need artificial selection with modern society.

>>1475731
Countering your sage now. U mad?

>>1475622
don't worry, I have a good understand of how genetics works. you can easily replace the down's syndrome point in my post with cystic fibrosis, or sickle-cell anemia or a myrid of genetic disorders and disabilities and it would still make sense, in that its non-sensical to carry out "eugenics" because you have to not just go after the people afflected with the genetic physical or mental ailment, but after those who have the carrier traits for those ailments to arise again.

And what about who gets to define what is or isn't some kind of impairment anyway. We as a society consider deaf-ness a physical handicap, but those in the deaf community don't see it that way really, chosing not to get a cochelar implant, even some deaf parents go to fertility clinics to see if they can select for children who will be born deaf. (and seriously, if you got the money to actually go to fertility clinic to do that, you're not a drain on society's "precious resources," that shit is expensive)

>>1475729
>Implying Eugenics = race

Each race has dumbfucks. Be they white, black, yellow, etc.

>>1475736
Evolution does not work like that.

>>1475744
>some deaf parents go to fertility clinics to see if they can select for children who will be born deaf.

that's fucked up

>>1475748
Evolution doesn't work either. We are saving inherently "weak" people.

>>1475739

Technically you didn't "counter" anything. Sageing a thread does not harm them, it merely does not bump them. Also, I would agree with OP, I had no issues with the thread. I do think that we can utilize genetic engineering and cognitive enhancement instead of resorting to selective breeding. Noninvasive cognitive enhancement seems to be especially effective for those with deficits, whether they are inherited or caused by environmental factors.

LOL @ shitforbrains who think natural selection has stopped occuring! Just as likely as gravity disappearing.

>>1475744
Why would anyone want to be deaf... I'm mindfucked.

>>1475767
>doesn't understand how natural selection works

(>>1475721 here)

YOU FUCKING PATHETIC IGNORANT CARGO CULTIST PHONIES YET SMUG EUGENICISTS, HOW ABOUT YOU STOP BUMPING THIS THREAD AND ALLOW /SCI/ TO BECOME A SCIENCE BOARD? OKAY? OKAY!

>>1475764

I'm of course not implying an alternative to OP's solution. My argument was a tad cryptic in that respect.

>>1475780
>getting mad to children with internet education

why so cranky gramps?

>>1475780
hahahahahaha

>>1475770
>Doesn't understand that it doesn't stop for one second.

>>1475661
Way to miss the point you dumbfuck

>>1475446
Hawking developed ALS, he wasn't born disabled.

I guess I'm for it under certain conditions.

I'd advocate eugenics of the kind that I would like to call "medical non-interference"

If a child is not fit enough to survive in the world he was born into for a certain amount of time, without depending on heavy medical care, the child should not be saved.

I see "our gene pool is getting fucked up" threads ALL THE TIME. As far as I can tell it is just people who don't understand how evolution works. Organic matter cycles and functions work a lot like geologic ones, they are going to happen not matter what we do. If too many people become horrible our society will collapse and natural selection will takes its toll. There are already constantly reoccurring functions in the universe that essentially perform the task of eugenics, I trust no human to know what is right.

>>1475629
Just because we have a brutal past doesn't mean that now that our technology and society is advanced enough to help people; we shouldn't. It means that we need an evolution of thought. We need to overcome instinct.

hahahaha

>>1475696
>Who Decides?
You do!

haha most of 4chan will be killed if it was implemented. thanks for the lulz

>>1475882
Before the 19th century nearly 75% of all children died before the age of 5. Hot damn, we must have been really retarded back then. If you seek to return to such a time, then, well, have fun convincing the rest of the world that you're sane.

>>1478654
>Before the 19th century nearly 75% of all children died before the age of 5.

[citation needed]

there were periods where this was true (famines, plagues) but overall it was like 25% not including stillborn.

fuck tons of women died in childbirth too though, i don't remember statistics but it was crazy high back before they could just dose you up with stuff and cut the baby out if needed.

genetic abnormalities sometimes bring greatness

a beautiful mind was about a person with sever mentle abnormalities and the stock market today revoloves around his notions

also lets do a ship who sang to them

I think screening, and abortions, are a good way of eugenics, E.G. if a a featus tests positive for something that will fuck it up for the rest of its life, then it should be aborted, if the parents think so, but i think it should. I have a friend, whose baby was going to be born with a disorder that would mean it would be on a machine keeping it alive for the rest of its life. wouldnt be allowed to leave the room its in, so they aborted it, years later they had a baby, that child died in a car crash and the mum spends the rest of her life thinking that god is punishing herr for having the abortion. (thats fucked up... thats one of the reasons i hate religeon)

but anyway, eugenics is a process, it is not good nor evil, although its uses for 'good' may seem little, and the uses for 'evil' may seem large, the process itself is not evil or good, (just like science in general) alot of people don't understand that.

>>1478694
>[citation needed]

>there were periods where this was true (famines, plagues) but overall it was like 25% not including stillborn.
>overall it was like 25%
>25%
>no citation
Holy fuck, did you just do what I think you did?

For a source, which is very hard to find and I'm relying on the research of others, I look to this quote:
>Of every 1,000 children born in early 18th-century London, almost half died before the age of 2. Malnutrition, maternal ignorance, bad water, dirty food, poor hygiene and overcrowding all contributed to this extremely high mortality rate.
from: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/48176-18th-century-london-its-daily.html

50% for under 2 sounds like it extrapolates to 75% under 5 nicely.

eugenics shouldnt be against genetic abnormalities,

but harmful genetic defects

im talking ones that will harm the child itself to the point it cannot function, or ones that will harm the mother greatly.

there is a difference between genetic abnormalities and harmful genetic defects.

also most people here dont seem to understand genetics... at all

>>1478801
And before you say "Well, they just weren't hygienic or educated enough, it has nothing to do with whether they're 'retarded'" might I point out that it's a direct indicator of their fitness during their environmental variables - the purported ultimate goal of eugenics advocates. If we really want to create the ultimate survivors, then we cannot rely on modern medicines, because these may not always be readily available to us. We can practice some form of hygiene, but not much. We can even utilize artificial famine conditions just to make sure we're creating hardy enough creatures who will survive them...

This will be what is necessary to create the ideally most fit to Earth's basic environment, unadulterated by our technology and knowledge.

It's stark raving lunacy.

things like that shouldnt be legal, normally people like that are given genetic councilling, if it is found that the condition has a high chance of passing to their children then they are advised to not have children again, although they may if they want, normally they dont, (as that is the reason they choose to go through genetic councilling)

this is the most pc version of eugenics that we have today.... kinda lame aint it. although this is for conditions that cant be tested for, or that we are not sure about. I think we need to master in vitro fertilisation. and have it done in vitro.

another thing is that we should find a drug that makes people sterile, and a counter drug that makes them fertile again for say a week, (so that there are no unplanned pregnancy's) also this idea is utopian as there would be so many side effects of screwing around with hormones so much... but it would be great to have

>>1478840

that is an incredibly good point, I always forget that one...

I don't think that we should necessarily remove the retards, cripples, etc., but that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. Just make them infertile right after birth or something. If it's something that happens due to outside causes and not genetics then let em be.

bump

>>1474926
>>The real shit like wiping out retards, disabled people

Until you understand what disorders like Autism and Down's Syndrome are and how they come to exist, you will continue to say that they can be 'cured' by eugenics. Which they cannot be.

>/sci/
>eugenics

i already killed my asthmatic son and next time granny needs another knee she's going too.

>>1474949

this is kind of a stupid argument. you're basically saying that nature happens to be correct for some arbitrary reason, and that allowing children to be born blind or disabled in any way is preferable to altering them and creating the ideal children. we don't have to dictate anyone's behavior, but we can determine certain factors that are objectively more practical for survival, intelligence, contentment, productivity, etc.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/02/25/adhd-may-be-associated-with-creative-genius/11713.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3326317/Albert-Einstein-found-genius-through-autism..
html
>wiping out retards
really now?

WOW. this thread didn't 404 over the night. Amazing.
Anyway, I think we can all agree that eugenics can work, its just a matter of devising a system.
Lets live that to some geneticists, mkay?

>>1479450
Technically, you are wrong by calling Albert Einstein a retard.
1) Imagine if Albert Einstein was a retard (as i presume you try to render him a mentally challenged person)
2) Imagine the people who see that he is a retard
3) Imagine that his works are regarded as bullshit due to his retardation.

If he was retarded none of his works would have been taken seriously. When was the last time
you asked a retard for an advice? Or maybe the solution for a complicated physical problem?

>>1479450

I think they mean the retards that can do nothing but drool and grunt.

97% of all niggers won't make it.

Sounds good to me.

>>1480496
thats what im trying to say that there is a difference between a retarded retard and a retard in social life but a fucking genious on maths music whatever

>>1480500
3% are the niggers who will be used in the zoos worldwide?

>>1480510
Maybe but I doubt even the PETAfags would take care of them.

>>1480529
we cant let them die JUST like that?

oh wait
Darfur

I'm against eugenics, for the simple reason that it's morally wrong to kill or castrate people, no matter for what purpose. Sure it might benefit the human race in the long run, but the ends do not justify the means.

Institutionalized evil has too many costs, and a eugenics program suffering from government corruption or the control of an insane group would be a terrible thing. People are too stupid to do a proper job of deciding who lives/breeds and who doesn't, especially groups of people i.e. government. It's too risky.

The retards/disabled people aren't much of a drain on society anyway. We probably spend less than 1% of our GDP taking care of them.

>>1480545

yeah taking care of them is not a big deal. but taking care of the nurses, doctors, the family members who are forced to look after the sick family member are also now a burden due to their inability to spend time at work.

>Eugenics would mean less disabled people which means the government won't have to spend as much money!
>America spends more money on military than all the world's other countries combined
>America hasn't been in a significant war for almost 70 years

>>1480561

its a big fucking chain and it effects every aspect of the society.
Your fg may not come over cos you a neighbour with a retard etc

>>1480576
you mean the cold war right?

>>1480585
Because America took up arms against Russia during the cold war right?

Oh, wait, that's right - It's called the 'cold war' for a reason.

>>1480590
>implying that US didnt have to spend shit loads of money on arms, nuclear and space races
>implying after the collapse of USSR China didnt emerge as the new communist evil

>>1475046
related: I call rule 34 on retards

Stupid.

given our understand of the topic and its pratical application Its more or less the same as getting somebody who can't read or wright, and only speaks english, to proof read a chinese novel.

>>1480601
You're arguing semantics and I doubt you have any idea about the Marshall Plan or the Proxy wars that gave the Cold War its name. Goodbye, troll.

>>1480608

I refuse to save this on my computer, so direct link.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/6/61/Bleh.jpg

>>1480624
i think that this image completely destroys any argument agains eugenics. CONGRATULATIONS!
Now the only thing left to do is to show this exact image to any person out there who says that eugenics is "inhumane"

>who can't read or wright

2 wright brothers made a plane?

>>1475553
>>1475553
Actually, he has 3 kids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Personal_life

>>1480663

are they retarded too?

>>1480669
youre fucking retarded PUNK

>>1480669
who the fuck let these neggas call stephen hawking a fucking reatrd. wtf happened to /sci/?

>>1475046
> people are poor because of their genes

>>1475040
unsuccessful nazi troll

>>1475506
>>1475489
>>1475481
>>1475272
>>1475255
unsuccessful jew troll(s)

>>1480500
>>1480500
>>1480500
>>1480500
>>1480500
>>1480500>>1480500>>1480500
>>1480500
>>1480500
>>1480500
THIS THIS HTIS

>>1480545
and what if they are in pain, what if they will live a life of nothing but complete and utter pain hooked to a machine for the rest of their life. what if it is someone who wants to be castrated, is who ever does it morally evil.

It seems you have sparked lively debate on /sci/ with this eugenics faggotry;maybe because we are all retarded or w/e.

That eugenics pic is totally great.

>Self direction of human evolution
>Implying we know what to do.

>>1481617


inb4 creationism

If we instituted a eugenics program, people would be smart enough to see the benefits of eugenics.

>implying

Married men and women who have some sort of genetic disease, such as sickle-cell anaemia or haemophilia DO receive "genetic counseling". Health professionals consult with them and pretty much lay down the facts. They can say, with confidence, the varying probabilities that their children will be afflicted by their disease, or if they will be carriers.

The right to life is universal, and genetic counseling is as far as eugenics should go.

>>1481618
>>1481618
>>1481618

>niggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggernigger
niggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggernigg
erniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerni
ggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggernigger

If you start a eugenics program, we will bomb the fuck out of you until you die or surrender

<-----

You'll all be super pissed when the disease that kills everyone except people with downs comes along.

>>1479389
But that's the thing. Nature IS right, because it can and will ruin our shit, no matter how much we alter it to our needs. There is no "ideal". The only way to ensure survival is to become as diverse as possible, so that any eventuality at least as a chance of being overcome. It's genetic stockpiling. We have to be nature's batman.

>>1482535
> implying that downs syndrome is the next step of evolution

>>1482551
>Implying he said that
>Implying evolution occurs in "steps"

>>1482535
Kill the downs before that or not were fucked because they cant reproduce.

Why does eugenics always have to be about euthanasia? Why isn't sterilization an option?

If you say that many of the people who are selected against are also a burden on society that need to be removed then you are making an argument for eugenics of economics.

If the goal is just to increase evolutionary fitness and stop propagation of unfavorable mutation then sterilization is both sufficient and far more humane.

>>1482551
My point was this >>1482546

A varied species is better than a species bred on a few selected properties in the long term, simply because it is more adaptable to change. Selecting along some arbitrary line will create new unforeseen weaknesses that could fuck over the entire species instead of just part of it.

A few failures is an acceptable loss, the endangerment and possible loss of the entire species is not acceptable.

>>1482600
And you know what? We already have a natural eugenics system. Do YOU fuck retarded people? Right, because we look for the fittest, smartest, healthiest, most symmetrical people we can find to breed with. Why implement a flawed human system when there's already a perfectly good one?

>>1482599
Because angry powerless nerds need to be made to sound important and badass by recommending euthanasia.

>>1482635
They just want to kill black people, and they're disguising it as science.

>>1482641
And most people who want to kill are/were losers. Look at Hitler.

>>1482623
Somebody fucked a retard because you're here

>So /sci/, how do you feel about Eugenics?
>226 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

it doesn't have to be invasive, make bearing a child require a "drivers liscence" and if you don't have one your child is aborted automatically (nanomachines).

this would eliminate teen pregnancy, rape births would never happen - you can see it's already the start of eugenics.. but it's one better because you don't have to give liscences to people who are likely to pass down things like respitory, cardiac problems or have murderous tendencies.

We could be immortal right now if we didn't follow morals or ethics.

Genetic diversity = Good for evolution.
Artificially limiting the diversity = Bad, less ways for new mutations to occur.

Isn't it funny knowing the "master race" would be inbred?

>>1482818
no

>>1482753
This.

>>1482818
Except it wouldn't. Then again, you're not the brightest kind so you'd be eradicated.

>>1482839
troll who doesn't understand the attitude of eugenics

we should view dna as a commodity, to be bought and sold on the open market. Free market genomics is the answer, and it will ensure that good genes are preserved, stockpiled, and traded, and used.

Hey, I have a question for all of you IQ-obsessed gentlemen. I have an IQ of 115 as determined by a very rigorous and scientific test, do I have a shot at a career in science?

>>1482839

Except it would, because it would consist of inbred dumfucks that support eugenics, like yourself.

lrn2geneticdiversity you angsty little teenager

>>1482944
No chance in hell, retard.

>>1482944
get good at taking IQ tests.

seriously they mean nothing.

>>1474949
>>1474949
>>1474949
>>1474949
>>1474949

Lol. Angy fat neckbeard alert.

>>1474949
>enforce a program which is fundamentally inhumane?

eugenics does not imply government coercion. it is merely the perception that genes, good breeding, is important.

The government should not be involved, but it can be done in a free market way. in fact it already is. if you want to donate sperm, reputable sperm banks screen you. and women are eugenicists too, they don't want to marry and have children with a retard.

But i think we should take it further. and simply buy and sell genes on the open market. The world is increasing becoming global and very competitive, so parents want to get any edge they can. if buying genes can give their descendants and edge in this world, people still start doing this.

ITT: I don't understand genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity genetic diversity etc.

>>1475446
Hawking's illness is not genetic.
Hawking does not count as an argument either for or against Eugenics. If he did reproduce, the children would be healthy. And possibly geniuses who give us zero-point energy.

>>1483008
lol libertarianism

>>1483047
>implying you know shit about genetics

Fuck off, nigger.

Lol @ the Jew who was arguing for eugenics. He's gone under any good eugenics system.

>>1482728
yeap

>>1483008

>has no idea how genetics work
>buy other people's genes to give edge to own offspring

'yeah! my kid will be smarter because my wife was fertilized with a really smart guy's sperm!'

>>1483111

>'yeah! my kid will be smarter because my wife was fertilized with a really smart guy's sperm!'

yes. dna is a code. like a computer program. and children are individuals, they are not 'yours', they are not your property. they have human rights. making sure they have good genes should be a human right, and children should be allowed to sue their parents if they have deformities or low iq or something.

I don't think retarded people end up having a lot of sex, so I don't see why we'd bother killing retarded babies, except to save the parents some time and money.

I think a tendency for hard work, dedication, and drive for success is just as important as intelligence, and I'd like to see how you'd measure THAT.

Why bother when transhumanism will get us results faster?

>>1483296
The retarded still require resources, quite a diminishing thing these days.

I think that the demonization of eugenics is wrong. Evolution naturally wipes the least fit from the gene pool.

However, I can't honestly say that I'd approve of any sort of mass eugenics program. Too much room for abuse there, I think.

Hmm, Eugenics has a lot of grey areas, if not, it is a giant grey area.

Because of the great variation of our Genes, this would be impossible, illogical, and on top of it, inhumane.

There are people with disabilities that have features that would be considered great of society.


If anything, I believe that the worst criminals should be castrated if they receive a sentence less the life or the death sentence.

>>1483492
>implying being a criminal is a genetic trait

"jewgenics"

In my opinion, eugenics is incredibly wrong. You have to keep in mind ethics. This reminds me of the idea of sex selection. This is why many European countries made sex selection illegal...It is bound to happen that eugenics or control over child intelligence will occur. From what I've heard, scientists are still pretty far away from being able to stop genetic mutations...I don't think it will ever happen for ethical reasons.

Birth control is a much nicer way to control the gene pool than eugenics. You should have to pass a test, (like getting a driver license) before you can have children.

>>1483136
That's retarded. Without their parents, they wouldn't exist. The parents didn't choose to give them the genes they got, it's lolrandum.

>>1483457
That's what I said before. >>1482623

Why implement an incredibly flawed human system when there's already a perfectly good one in place.