ITT : /sci/ things that are considered evil to the public eyes but really aren't

[Anonymous No.12183561]

I'll start with eugenics.

[Anonymous No.12183568]

While incels dream about eugenics, chads bang bitches.

[Anonymous No.12183578]

>>12183568
Yes. Your point?

[Anonymous No.12183631]

>>12183561
Transhumanism?

[Anonymous No.12183635]

I noticed this is called the science board but it seems to be a bunch of college kids from /pol/ and /x/ pushing their schizo or racist ideologies and somehow pretending that it is scientific too.

[Anonymous No.12183667]

>>12183635
Are you trying to push the ideology that we should use eugenics to promote traits such as high religiosity, promiscuity, lack of ability to use condoms ? Cause this is the dominant ideology. Pretty radical if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.12183673]

>>12183635
>implying eugenics isn't science
Why nerds and faggots fear biology so much?

[Anonymous No.12183680]

>>12183667
Natural biological selection is not the same as human contrived eugenics.
One is allowing horniness and class to determine partners and the other is allowing other people to determine your partners for you based on whatever they personally consider "ideal" in their own opinion but not your opinion.

>>12183673
Is he here to discuss the scientific part about eugenics or just to make a racist statement? OP is not here to discuss eugenics on a scientific level, he just wants to blabber about his racist views

[Anonymous No.12183722]

>>12183680
Yes and this "natural" (there is nothing natural about the civilization which allows everybody to survive without risk of dying) individualistic eugenics program is leading us to become worse over time. There is only one way to have no eugenics program, it is to force 2 children per couple. Since we are leaving this free, this means the amount per couple depends on things like religiosity (on the "good" side) or failure to use birth control (on the worse side). It is highly probable there are genetic predisposition to those things and the long term consequences may not be pretty.

[Anonymous No.12184574]

>>12183561
I'm personally a big fan of the idea that one day soon we'll be able to create thousands of zygotes for a couple, allow them to select the best ones, and allow their choices to reach maturity. I'd love to be involved in bringing that future into reality, but don't see a clear path at the moment. Maybe studying big data, or bioinformatics?

[Anonymous No.12184586]

>>12183680
I think this >>12184574 is what people mean when they talk about eugenics in the future. No one making decisions for you, no cruelty, just technology making life more comfy and getting rid of genetic diseases and the like.

[Anonymous No.12184616]

>>12183561
It's impossible to come up with a eugenics model that doesn't (rightfully) racially discriminate. Literally any definition of good genes/bad genes would seem racist.