Eugenics

[Anonymous No.7281453]

Is it possible to have a discussion on eugenics that doesn't devolve into /pol/faggotry?

I feel like there is no dark facet of humanity that doesn't have its foundings in the human genome. This isn't to say that every problem *facing* humankind is readily resolvable via selective breeding or genetic therapies. But there is so much low-hanging fruit to be had in this arena, and we have so much experience with the process already having extensively manipulated the genes of livestock and companion animals. It just drives me utterly mcfucking batnuts to see people shy away from the topic just because they don't want to be stigmatized as the next Hitler.

Humanity keeps doing terrible shit because it's programmed at the genetic level to do terrible shit. Fix the genes, fix the problem. Find the smart, healthy, happy, peace-loving human exceptions out there in the world right now and let their genes propagate en masse to the next generation. If their genes aren't ideal, don't let them pass them on. They're hurting all humankind when they do. Keep iterating. Breed hatred, unhappiness, illness and stupidity out of the gene pool forever.

[Anonymous No.7281472]

>>7281453
>Is it possible to have a discussion on eugenics that doesn't devolve into /pol/faggotry?
No, because Eugenics IS /pol/ faggotry.

>Humanity keeps doing terrible shit because it's programmed at the genetic level to do terrible shit.
[citation needed]
Nature vs Nurture has long been hotly debated, and isn't settled in any sense.

>Humanity keeps doing terrible shit
And who decides what is ans isn't "terrible shit"?
..welcome back to /pol/.

Also, many (most) people would consider eugenics itself "terrible shit".
Wouldn't you wind up killing off the eugenicists?

[Anonymous No.7281470]

We'd be a neutered homogeneous blob doomed to complacency, stagnation, and ultimately extinction.

Hatred, unhappiness, illness and stupidity contribute to the dynamic nature of human society in the long run, which is beneficial.

[Anonymous No.7281479]

The problem with eugenics is that we are determining our own genetic futures, which is not something that should be taken lightly. Although we may favor certain traits that does not mean that those traits will be benificial in the way we think or benificial at all. Selection already does a fine job at optimizing us and we don't really know what the long term reprocussions might be if we meddle with our own genes

[Anonymous No.7281481]

>Breed hatred, unhappiness, illness and stupidity out of the gene pool forever.

There will always be stupidity.

[Anonymous No.7281483]

>>7281453
Your post itself illustrates one of the biggest problems, since you aren't limiting what you want to eliminate to things that are objectively bad. You're stretching the list to include things that you simply don't like.

"Peace-loving" isn't necessary a desirable trait, and "hatred" isn't always a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.7281503]

OP, your idea is great. We should breed objectively harmful genetic traits out of the human population for good. All we need to do is select a panel of enlightened, unbiased, omnibenevolent human beings to oversee the program, and it'll be a smashing success.

Hmm...

[Anonymous No.7281531]

One might be able to narrow down the list of traits to be targeted to unambigously bad stuff, like heritable risk factors for major physical and mental illnesses. Like, nobody's going to argue that we'd be better off keeping major depression around in the gene pool.

So that said, how are you going to enforce it? If you make it a voluntary program, nobody will comply. The desire to pass one's genes along to offspring is, like, the most fundamental urge any healthy living creature has. Arguably, if you look at our 20th century population explosion, it's another 'objectively bad' heritable trait that ought to be expunged from the gene pool. Regardless, good luck getting people to comply with your directive.

If you make it a mandatory program, you know what'll happen next. Protests, riots, and civil wars in that order. Because people will, ironically, fight to the death for their right to spread their genes far and wide. And even if you got people to comply, it wouldn't have the results you're thinking it would - because the people running the program are just as flawed as the genetic sequence you're trying to improve.

Pray that friendly aliens visit earth and quietly use a ray beam to sterilize people unfit to reproduce (for some enlightened definition of that term). That's about the only way you'll get it to work... and even then you'll probably have a Children of Men scenario on your hands as soon as 50% of the world's population discovers they can't make babies any more.

[Anonymous No.7281604]

[spoiler]>>7281479
>The problem with eugenics is that we are determining our own genetic futures, which is not something that should be taken lightly.
Definitely better than "mother nature" determining our future.


I think eugenics could be a very useful thing for mankind. But since this Hitler story, it's unfortunately prescribed.
But as >>7281531 said already, there were some practical and ethical problems anyway, so I don't think eugenics will ever be used. But that's not all that bad because in the not too distant future our skills in genetics will probably be so high that eugenic would be redundant anyway.

[Anonymous No.7281625]

>>7281531
How about if you require transfer payments like Section 8, EBT, WIC, SNAP etc and you already have 1 child, you need to check in every few months for a birth control shot or your benefits are cut off.

When we have an equivalent temporary sterilization method for men, we should use that too.

Humane, voluntary, and based on objective criteria.

[Anonymous No.7281637]

>>7281625
by the way, in b4
>that violates peoples right to live off the efforts of other people

[Anonymous No.7281698]

> we have so much experience with the process already having extensively manipulated the genes of livestock and companion animals.
> drives me utterly mcfucking batnuts to see people shy away from the topic just because they don't want to be stigmatized as the next Hitler.
>still believing the Hitler stigmatization is the main problem with eugenics

By chance have you actually researched what happens to the livestock and plants we manipulate the genes of for human use?

If you haven't then you don't truly understand the problem with eugenics.

Commercialization is the main enemy here, you commercialize genes you put our future survival at risk. This is what you're asking for when you talk of advertising "good" and "bad" traits to select for and against.

[Anonymous No.7281811]

eugenics doesn't work because everyone has their own ideal of perfection, and no perfect being exists to tell us what the right definition of perfection is.

Furthermore, you might argue that you could take traits which are obviously good (intelligence, physical ability) and exaggerate them to the point of perfection, but if we lack certain traits which make us humans we would transcend into another species altogether, which is not a bad thing, but it would fuck all of us who are already human and I don't want to sacrifice myself and my fellow humans just to advance my species further along the evolutionary chain.

TL;DR: I, along with my fellow human beings, plan on being the apex predator of earth for as long as I can manage it

[Anonymous No.7281829]

>>7281470

Nice conjecture

[Anonymous No.7281845]

eugenics is not a science issue, its a social issue. genes are irrelevant. whats important is defining a metric to determine which baby belongs in the dumpster. Personally i think we should segregate population by class. the world is already divided enough. maybe if the poor wont fight for their freedom now, they'll fight for it when we take their sperms and egg away.

I mean, think about it. either the poor fights, and we get progress. or the poor doesn't fight, in which case nothing of value was lost. we need not actively try to preserve the ignorant through food stamps or other shit.

now this can be implemented very easily, the american government is 2nd class to no one when it comes to manipulating the public. we can start with something easy like

>are you pregnant?
>take this state sponsored parenting class every thursday at 2:00 PM
>employeer must provide time off by law
>taking the class will give your child a chance to enroll in a better school lol no they wont, seats are paid and classes are full
>oh by the way take these tax credits since you took the classalso dont worry about that 5% tax raise to cover for our lost tax revenue

see what i did there? if you are poor you need to fucking work, and chances are your employeer doesnt give two shits about you and leaving work at 2pm on a thursday every week for a month is not gonna go down well. but if you are rich, you dont give two shits about $20 dollars worth of tax credits and your kids are going to some private school anyways. piece by piece this is how we erode away liberty and implement eugenics


so lets face reality here, eugenics, if it ever happens, like anything else, will by implanted by the rich and powerful to empower the rich and powerful because you can bet your left and right nut, that the general public is too fucking stupid to be critical about whats happening around them.

[Anonymous No.7281850]

>>7281845
okay, let's see how much of an under-age you are


why do you think that to work matters ?

what od you call progress ?

why do you focus on the poor ?

why do you focus on freedom ?

why does it matter that the rich use eugenics for themselves ?

[Anonymous No.7281869]

I hate it when idiots think IQ is the only classification for human survival and tout eugenics as the solution.

Having a large gene pool is important for a number of reasons, all of which outweighing eugenics:

Population stability (we are centuries away from the next natural disaster. Yellowstone eruption, asteroids, unknowns such as alien invasion, biowarfare, nuclear destruction, oceanic methane release, ice cap melt). We almost got wiped out 100 000 years ago when the human population reached 1000 due to caldera eruption. Yellowstone will be MUCH more destructive.

Cellular adaptations. Stuff like virus immunities, adaptations at the microscopic level that are unrelated to IQ. Lactose tolerance is a recent mutation arising 8000 years ago in Turkey.

Physical beauty. Tallness, fitness. Mutations are the only sure way of evolving beauty, which will later become the future image of humanity. You want physically fit high IQ people? You keep the rest of the gene pool in for the time being.

Culture. Creativity. Things to occupy our past times with. Geniuses in other fields rarely have high IQs as well. Take them out and you're seriously hindering the development of talent within the gene pool.

Emotional intelligence. Without it, people would be committing suicide. As life expectancy lengthens (another adaptation by the way, cellular reproduction), so too does our race need to be happy with its place int he cosmos. Some might say this is more important than having a high IQ in terms of evolutionary survival.

Empathy. (a weak point to finish with but why the hell not?)

So as you can see, I do not take eugenicists seriously. They may be able to score well on a test and manipulate numbers and shapes slightly better than the rest of the population, but they are bad at seeing the big picture and/or have a superiority complex. This is why these threads deserve to be purged from /sci/. This is why you are in fact, a pseudointellectual.

[Anonymous No.7281881]

What about eugenics for only genetic diseases? Like cystic fibrosis, etc?

[Anonymous No.7281884]

>>7281453
Eugenics on the scale you're talking about is (are?) improbable. Humanity has eugenics programmed into its system. All those "problem" behaviors are a product of this. If you consciously apply eugenics to the human race you take away the edge which helped our species get to where we are.

[Anonymous No.7281886]

>>7281869
You know, you could breed humans so, that they don't just become more intelligent but also more immune to disease, more beautiful and with an higher emotional intelligence, etc.
Eugenics just means that you speed up evolution and reduce it's negative effects.

[Anonymous No.7281894]

>>7281886
>you could breed humans so

Kek

[Anonymous No.7281900]

>>7281886
There is literally no point to eugenics since we are practically at the genetic age and genetic engineering/AI.

[Anonymous No.7281902]

>>7281900
Yeah, just as I said in >>7281604

[Anonymous No.7281910]

reminder that 95% of women pregnant with some retarded kid, chose to kill the thing by abortion. If it is not eugenics, what is it ?

[Anonymous No.7281936]

I don't feel any need to spread my own genes. I mean I do believe I have a lot of good qualities, but if I'm going to have a kid I want to select genes that minimize chance for depression, mental illness and disease. So either via genetic manipulation (unlikely) or by simply choosing genes from people who have the qualities I think would make a kid happy.

To me having a kid isn't about spreading your genes, the most important thing you give to your children is in the upbringing. If you wouldn't love your kid if it was adopted I don't think you're fit to be a parent either way.

[Anonymous No.7281948]

>>7281886

>Eugenics just means that you speed up evolution and reduce it's negative effects.

You're not speeding up evolution nor are you reducing it's negative effects, you are effectively trading one liability for another.

You are taking a gamble on the off chance that by taking certain genes out of the equation your genome becomes more fit for future survival. Despite the fact that to do so often means reducing genetic diversity to some degree and risking a pathogen butt raping your immune system because the perceived "bad" trait you took out also happen to act as a barrier to said pathogen.

That's the problem with eugenics, you gamble with your genes. The romance of bettering one's stock behind eugenics is a red herring.

[Anonymous No.7281971]

>>7281453
>Humanity keeps doing terrible shit because it's programmed at the genetic level to do terrible shit.

Look into psychopathy.

[Anonymous No.7282011]

>>7281472
>Nature vs Nurture has long been hotly debated, and isn't settled in any sense.
True, but we are gaining ground. We have founds genes that are associated with the devolopment of anti-social personality disorder. Eventually we will know enough to go forth with a eugenics to reduce/increase the amount of various traits within a human population, and to a large extent isolate it to those traits.

[Anonymous No.7282038]

>>7281948
Without resorting to genetic manipulation, we could improve humanity simply by ensuring that smart people reproduce more than dumb people.

Take a look at what happened to ashkenazi jews : a millenia of having to work "white collar" jobs have resulted in an average IQ a standard of deviation above the white average.

[Anonymous No.7282095]

>>7281948
It seems you confuse eugenics with ordinary animal breeding. It's true that e.g. a dog breed has a smaller genetic diversity as mixed breeds. However animal breeding is is aligned to profit and appearance, the health and well-being of the breed is second-rate.
Eugenics is just the opposite of this: health and well-being is the only purpose. The humans would become stronger, smarter and also healthier by every generation. If genetic diversity is necessary for an effective immune system, than genetic diversity would also be an important aspect to the breeding program.

[Anonymous No.7282203]

>>7281936
#1 cuck, enjoy raising another man's baby

(I actually agree with you, but that's the kneejerk argument you're going to run into if you try to convince broken people to volunteer themselves out of the gene pool)

[Anonymous No.7282206]

>>7281604
>Definitely better than "mother nature" determining our future.
"Mother nature" got us to where we are now. We don't know what the repercussions of actively moulding our own genomes are. Say we select against a gene for agression. Our knowledge might be incomplete and that gene is also involved with a pathway that increases competitive feelings. The resulting people are less motivated to work and society suffers.

That's a hypothetical, but our knowledge of genetics is far from complete, some would say the field is still in its infancy. Sweeping that under the rug with a blanket "Well we'll know about it in the future" is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.7282216]

>>7281453

Genetic diversity makes our species less susceptible to species-wide disease, agreed?

What makes you think that behavioral diversity (having some people around that are violent, or dumb, or angry, or sickly) doesn't similarly protect our species against species-wide behavioral threat?

Think we'd have developed nuclear power when we did if we hadn't dumped so many resources into first developing atomic bombs?

If necessity is the mother of invention, then violent, dumb, angry, sickly people are a valuable resource.

[Anonymous No.7282231]

There seems to be a lot of appeal to nature in this thread.

Nature, through blind experimentation, discovers which traits are best suited to surviving in a resource-scarce environment and rewards those traits by letting the organisms who exhibit them propagate themselves to the next generation. Nature is indifferent to the plight of the organism; all it cares about is maximizing fitness (which is not health in the contemporary sense)

Modern humans don't live (for the most part) in a scarce environment, so fitness ceases to be a priority for them. Instead they're focused on health, happiness, and longevity. Moreover, they're *not* blind. We can identify certain genes that code for unpleasant traits, and work to get rid of them - through breeding or engineering. We're not perfect at it, but we actually have an idea (broadly) where we want to take the human race.

So anyone who trusts in nature to take our species where we want it to go (to the extent we can agree on it - 'health, happiness, and longevity' seems pretty uncontroversial) is sorely mistaken. So long as we stick to identifiable major illnesses, I don't understand why there wouldn't be a consensus on this issue.

From a technical standpoint I would lean towards the breeding route, as it's juts simpler, easier, faster, more time-tested. From a social standpoint, it's probably unworkable, which is a damn shame.

[Anonymous No.7282234]

>>7281936
>To me having a kid isn't about spreading your genes, the most important thing you give to your children is in the upbringing. If you wouldn't love your kid if it was adopted I don't think you're fit to be a parent either way.
nice, the liberals have won you over

[Anonymous No.7282251]

>>7282206
Of course we can't know for sure what the exact results will be. But we can estimate it a million times better than "mother nature". Sure, "Mother nature" got us to where we are now, but it was very ineffective. It needed 4,5 fucking billion years and trillions of tries to create man. And the result is intensely improvable.
The human can all do what nature does but thousand times better and faster.
Sure, you can't be sure that we will be completely happy with the result of eugenics, but why do you think natural selection would make it better? The only "goal" of natural selection is to create robust lifeforms, so it's a completely different goal as our which is to become happy and satisfied.

With your way of thinking we would still stuck in stone age.
>Farming? Buildings? Why should we become sedentary? Mother Nature gives us also food and shelter. We don't know what the repercussions of actively moulding our own environment are.

[Anonymous No.7282256]

>>7282234
>nice, the liberals have won you over

Go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.7282260]

>>7282216
Your argument is that we should keep people with shit traits around because they make life shitty for everyone which motivates them to strive for a less shitty life for all? If we snipped those shitty people out of the picture to start with, our lives would already be improved.

Maybe we wouldn't have needed nuclear bombs or nuclear power to start with if we'd bred traits for aggressiveness, hoarding, and overuse out of our gene pool a couple thousand years ago.

Are you just interested in making sure people always have problems so they stay on a treadmill forever?

[Anonymous No.7282297]

>>7281472
>Nature vs Nurture has long been hotly debated, and isn't settled in any sense.
lolokay
hard sciences say yes
soft sciences say no

[Anonymous No.7282301]

>>7282297
>hard sciences say yes
>soft sciences say no

Which hard sciences are you talking about? Did you learn about this in your Physics 1 class? That must have been interesting.

[Anonymous No.7282305]

>>7282301
Biology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL9F-7IWm2arblliP02lWOVNkQzpzMssVo&feature=player_detailpage&v=41ryusHlrgw

[Anonymous No.7282310]

>>7282305

except no

[Anonymous No.7282320]

>>7282310
Your argument is ground shattering

OH wait no it's not since it's a contradiction

[Anonymous No.7282322]

>>7282256
Go back to your cuck forums.

[Anonymous No.7282326]

>>7282310
g factor has a heritability of 80%

[Anonymous No.7282334]

>>7282260

If a species without these traits is more fit than one with them, why do all species have these traits? Why don't we see species without these traits?

[Anonymous No.7282342]

>>7282334
Idk what the other guy thinks, but we've transcended the basic laws of biology and have reached a point in our evolution where we have the means to guide our own evolution, as opposed to the normal factor of chance. We no longer habitate the position of apex predator in the ecosystem, we've reached the point where we define the conditions of the system, and the only factors that define what will shape our evolution are those which we create.

[Anonymous No.7282351]

>>7282342
or you know, whatever.
the point is things are different now for us than they've been in history or are in different parts of the world.
nature no longer decides what traits are desirable, we do.

[Anonymous No.7282361]

>>7282342

So... we know what's best for our species, even genetically speaking, to such a degree that we can make species-wide changes toward a norm (behavioral homogeny) that we do not and have never seen in nature.

I am skeptical.

What's more, suppose you successfully remove all selfish aggression (and *only* agression, a flawless success). Will the species retain it's ability to identify and respond to selfish aggression? It won't be around anymore, so how will we know? If it then spontaneously appears again (and remember, it's a valuable trait for an individual), won't the rest of the species be ripe for conquest?

[Anonymous No.7282382]

>>7281470
But who was Ireland/Swede/every successful homogeneous society

[Anonymous No.7282385]

>>7282382

Literally what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.7282386]

>>7281453
>>7281472
>>7281479
>>7281481
>>7281503
>>7281531
>>7281604
>>7281811
>>7281845
>>7281869
>>7282342


i propose a darwinian solution, instead of oposing the current degenerate culture i say use the incredible economical power that for first time the men has in history to clean the genetic pool of the most stupid ones among us , the metod is quite simple , we speed up the degenerate culture,
1: whe promote fat acceptance and trans fats on food to weed out the week of will ,the hambeasts and extra obese ones.
2.whe promote femisnism and slut aceptance to higlight the crazy ones and the sluts for easy spoting of non-wife material.
3.we promote vijda and porn for make weeabos and social autistic too dump to see beyond their little memes , wasted years on japan wizard style (see ho far they are) curbing the natal rate
4.killer welfare , too fat to work wellfare , nigger wigger comunities Gettos service welfare , anytipe of welfare who create depence or at least make then have to constanly report to be easy to follow and prison the most violent ones put out the work force the most lazy , or dumb ones
5.A real oportunitie for those who want to chance their lives , that if you work actuallly have a fucking life , that if i decide to get out of capitalist hell you will find a window to do it , loands for students , entrepenours etc etc
6.use the economic knowlege that we have to promote local ownership of your comunity , becose not everybody can live on the center of the world whe need to take this up to any place on earth , and options that actually work base on actual science

i am ready to listen other ideas to add to this ones and if some english born speaker want to clean it go

[Anonymous No.7282393]

I'm interested in my family genes a lot. We've got some crazy shit going in it, but it's strangely consistent:

>grandfather was Mensan, though other grandparents were mostly losers or sinister
>mother is Mensan, father killed himself at 30 because he was bipolar type 1
>my brother was athletic, is a programmer with confidential military clearance, and hates people
>my sister is good at college and the military but crippled by ADHD she refuses to admit
>I, Mensan, am going for EE after many lost years to due mental health issues
It's extremely improbably to have multiple Mensans in the same bloodline, let alone the ADHD consistency. My grandfather also travelled a lot, smoked since he was 12, and had like 5 kids with 5 different women. He was probably worse than the rest of us. He was a prolific writer though. Had $100k+ in the bank from it.

[Anonymous No.7282398]

>>7282385
Some retard tries to claim that without minorities and bad people your society crumbles because muh innovation muh thinking styles. Then you look at cultures which have been historically white, and they're incredibly successful without anywhere near the crime or degeneracy of others.

Friendly reminder: King Tut was a western European

[Anonymous No.7282400]

>>7282038

> ashkenazi jews

Yeah, now look up all the health problems they have. That rise in IQ came with a cost, not only with genetic disorders but also birth defects.

>>7282095

>eugenics is the opposite

Except it won't be, you can just look at educational or sperm/ egg banks to prove that.

At the core, schools are supposed to be about bettering ones self through knowledge of the world and themselves but as soon as you hit high school and college it all of suddenly becomes about economics the biggest offenders are sports and science institutions and companies.

A similar story occurs with sperm/ egg banks where the initial purpose was to preserve ones reproduction tools for emergency or later in life. Now you have businesses advertising those sperm and frozen eggs with promise of having children looking like celebs or having talent akin contemporary or historic personalities. Even big tech companies are getting into the action by using it as a tool to compromise with women so they are less inclined to worry about being too old to have babies and have increase productivity similar to men.

The warning signs are already in plain sight for eugenics itself being commercialized for profit. You say it's different because it's about our well being but the same can be said about food too and look what's happen to that.

[Anonymous No.7282402]

>>7281453
Eugenics is about gubmint policy, so the answer is by definition no.

[Anonymous No.7282635]

>>7281850
>why do you think that to work matters ?
you need money to do anything you stupid fuck. especially to raise children. money in our economy is synonymous with freedom dumbshit

>why do you focus on the poor ?
because the poor is the majority. are you this fucking stupid? why the fuck do you even need to ask this question?

>why do you focus on freedom ?
because i live in the west and these values are instilled upon me from the moment i was born. also it happens that people doesnt like to be fucked with. which is usually what people want when they say they want more freedom

>why does it matter that the rich use eugenics for themselves ?
it doesnt fucking matter you dumbfuck. do you have any reading comprehension you stupid little shit? read my post again. and no i'm not sticking around to answer more of your pathetic questions. I've met my quota for arguing with retards today already

[Anonymous No.7282665]

>>7281453
>Is it possible to have a discussion on eugenics that doesn't devolve into /pol/faggotry?
Eugenics will always devolve into /pol/faggotry and the opposite. Imagine if Sweden was in charge of an international Eugenics program. You'd be raising someone else supposedly "superior" brown babies given birth to by your wife.

[Anonymous No.7282667]

>>7282382
>Ireland
>successful homogeneous society
>Ireland
>successful
by what measure?

[Anonymous No.7282792]

>>7282234

Yeah, sure, selectively breeding ubermensch has always been a part of the leftist liberal islamic communist agenda, and only by spreading your failed idiot-genes can you defeat the illuminati.

[Anonymous No.7282796]

>>7281453
>I know exactly which traits are "positive" and which are "negative"
>I know exactly what every gene encodes
>I have such an omnipotent knowledge of the human genome that letting me forcibly sterilize parts of the population is a good idea
You should start by removing the sickle cell mutations, OP.

[Anonymous No.7282798]

>>7282386
Nice, your barely readable diatribe bitterly listing your pet political issues really convinces me that eugenics is a good idea put forth by reasonable people.