>Eugenics is the philosophy and social movement that argues it is possible to improve the human race and society by encouraging reproduction by people or populations with “desirable” traits (termed “positive” eugenics) and discouraging reproduction by people with “undesirable” qualities (termed “negative” eugenics).
we already did Selective Breeding or Artificial Selection in our corps and livestock and bring the best of them..
>tl;dr we pair 2 good-genes-human to get more good-genes-human
No, but I support those digits
>we pair 2 good-genes-human to get more good-genes-human
This happens naturally already.
Only if it's done naturally, ie if our society rewards a certain trait by market forces, that's fine. If our society creates a wide scale sexual fetishism of a certain trait, usually through manipulation of the media, that's not fine.
nah, cunt
wife's son
4 SCOOPS C'MON! LEAVE AVIARITY BEHIND!
those are different breeds of chickens!
I would like to see programs like this in my my shitty country, but it's too stupid and cucked.
This pretty much.
>ONLY 4 SCOOPS OF FEED
12 SCOOPS EVERY 12 HOURS
YOU GOTTA EAT BIG
TO GET BIG
>make it expensive to have kids
>stupid people don't understand money so they fuck nonstop
>smart get outbred by stupid
Yes but overall genetics are getting worse. The higher IQ you have the lower your reproduction rate is. Europe/USA are losing about 1 IQ point every 10 years, it's much faster now with immigration.
Victorian Era UK for instance had about +15 IQ average compared to modern UK
Eugenics could have solved a lot of our problems if it had actually been tried.
What Hitler practiced wasn't it.
Wtf does it really take a chicken 50+ years to grow all the way? I never even knew they could live that long
Well, here is the problem with it: How do you define a desirable trait?
Like, genes usually have far more than a single function, in a way that any changes in the geneset will greatly affect the function of all the other genes in wildly unpredictable ways.
It is not that it is a bad idea in itself, but we simply do not have the know how to do it safely.
For example, what if the gene you selected to use for eye color leads to congenital blindness in several of the individuals due to other gene sets you did not indentify previously causes this phenotype when in combination with the eye color genes?
This is clearly seen in GMOs, the same gene will have wildly different outcomes depending on what locus of the chromossome it attaches itself to.
Not to mention the subsidization of stupid people who can't even provide for themselves other then shit out kids for extra welfare gibs. It's almost like some took the purpose of euginics and decided to run it in the opposite direction, create as many retarded ghetto nigs as possible.
We could remarkably improve the human race by simply preventing people with major genetic disorders from reproducing
intelligence dumbass
Intelligence is by far the most important aspect of human beings.
>If our society creates a wide scale sexual fetishism of a certain trait, usually through manipulation of the media, that's not fine.
>Implying this isn't perfectly justified for very practical reasons
attn.com
Encouraging men to breed with woman with wide hips is one of the more reasonable positive eugenic movements.
>that pic
Yeah that's not eugenics herr Himmler, that's hormones and other assorted chemical fuckery. Tell me, what were the cancer rates in the 1950s compared to now, and why do you think that is?
>stupid people don't understand money so they fuck nonstop
It's less that they don't 'get' money and more that they have less reason to care since they don't hang around in social circles where high standards of education are expected.
>hurr durr everyone's getting dumber
Because we couldnt detect them as reliably
Jews were pretty much unknowingly doing selective interbreeding(Most Ashkenazi Jews are 30th cousins). If we don't do it, China will.
Funny you call him a dumbass but then there's no one gene for intelligence
I like the (you)
I like this.
Child benefits are now a way of incentivising IQ. Left wing libertarianism here I come!
This is bullshit, actually IQ is plateauing after better advances in education between the 60-90s. You only see IQ dropping amongst white boys. You can come to any conclusion you wish, but remember cause and effect.
Market success!
Ha I kid.
You're only right in that it's easier to point at problems than recognise greatness. How about.. violence, low intelligence and obesity? There are market forces to disincentivise this until someone says that you absolutely must want the dick of a race that has all three or you're a racist.
Unfortunately that's against the preferences of men in some cases, those "wide hips" are usually accompanied with high testosterone which in women causes obesity and in both genders causes aggression.
See how things are a little more complicated than "women make love BBC, white men breed out" especially when you're after the desirable trait of the female of the one you're also effectively breeding out with this strategy.
Eugenics is a very high level civilisation problem. Let's start with intelligence and see what's next.
By having standards?
FYI for some people even minor inbreeding, such as from the same ethnicity, can be dangerous. I have cousins with MS, in which carrier traits are common on western European islands and southern Europe.
I cannot marry my 30th cousin even if she's cute and her only flaw is having a surname associated to a community my ancestors helped establish. This is the level of genetic control I believe is appropriate.
you wanna improve the human condition? make it illegal for people with incurable diseases (aids) and clear genetic deficiencies (read: clear autism, other mental illnesses, non-cosmetic shit like being a cripple or actual midget, etc) to have sex without being sterilized or using some kind of birth control.
make it a crime punishable by death to run away from your role as a parent if you have kids, and perform the execution by using vivisection to harvest the blood and organs of the parent. use that money to raise the child in the state's care (cant fucking trust anyone to adopt the child and not simply use the money for themselves)
also, artificial selection did not improve the organisms beyond being more suited for OUR needs. you think we would ever breed a smarter cow? lolno we'd fucking beat the shit out of it at the first sign.
I support positive eugenics and voluntary negative eugenics, such as the system we have in place regarding abortion.
Our current capitalist system promotes destructive hedonistic behavior. Everyone is considered 'equal' and pleasure is a goal in our society because it's profitable. It isn't profitable to a corporation to support ideological fanaticism, hellbent on the forward progress, health, and prosperity of overall society.
So much change must occur in our nations that liberals would be begging a moderate like Trump at the mere sight of the righteous hellfire we'd bring.
Intelligence isn't the only measure of genetic fitness, though. Many folks with genuine deformities or debilitating genetic mutations can live a relatively normal lives nowadays. Off the top of my head, people with Cl- ion channel mutation leading to cystic fibrosis stay on treatment their entire lives and may get lung transplants to extend their lives. This is autosomal and can be prevented with selective breeding, although they will still be a likely carrier. But is it even an option to test for genetic compatibility as parents? I'm not sure
I tentatively think Eugenics is good. Humanity is evolving very quickly. Our species is an currently an intermittent phase to another species in the future. We dont know what humanity will become, but we know its changing, so we might as well take responsibility.
Furthermore theres obviously other problems with being hands off. The accumulation of 'genetic load', or negative mutations that havent been selected out of our gene pool, will inevitably turn humanity into a population of disable and disgruntled retards. Disease and hard natural selection used to purity the gene pool of small negative mutations, but not any more. Something has to change.
Not necessarily. Evolutionary pressures of modern society arent necessarily taking us anywhere good.
Actually its not clear whether people are getting dumber or smarter. The Flynn effect isnt explained. Some say its measurement bias. No one really knows.
I've always been pro science and eugenics is also part of it. Anyone opposing passive eugenics is either a shill or uneducated retard.
You can prevent people with malformations from being born using genetic engineering and artificial insemination, China is already testing some things, they aim to create smarter children in the near future, there's literally nothing wrong with speeding up evolution, besides evolution isn't even happening anymore since humanity reached a comfortable timeline and it's just stagnating.
Being against eugenics is like wanting to hold back humanity from getting better.
Here are some cool genetics facts :
0 A huge percentage of human genes have some impact on the brain. Something like 50%-80%. A huge percentage of genes impact our intelligence
1 Genes do things for multiple bodily systems
2 Because genes each do many things, and mutations are usually negative, people with general bodily problems usually also have brain problems. General health and general intelligence correlate.
3 Unhealthy people are generally speaking, also dumber.
Do they have a pic similar to OP, but instead of chicken, the average US woman?
nationalchickencouncil.org
that picture is off by quite a bit
no,however i support transhumanism and genetic engineering.
I support the euthanasia of defective babies. Beyond that I've assumed its kind of difficult because most people have like at least one bad gene. I'm sort of hoping genetic engineering becomes a thing and there aren't any pussy faggots worried about their illogical ethics to get in the way
Literally fucking Hitler.
After autism and "mental illness" plus every personality trait associated to it, then you have cassus belli to pretty much sterilise whoever the fuck you want. When humans use "whoever" they usually do so resentfully. It's no shock everyone hates intelligent people and call them sociopathic or autistic.
So, you are literally Hitler.
>44
Humans are still selecting, it's interesting that survival has actually been taken out of the picture, but selection is still alive.
In which I'd argue it's dysgenic because women describe intelligent men as "intimidating."
See?! I'm just practicing eugenics by swiping all the fat chicks in tinder.
If people with high IQs are given higher wages, if women are attracted to responsibility, survivability and being able to protect and look after children, then money becomes both a good incentive and an indication of high IQ.
Now if you just give money away or create clearly anti intellectual culture or just outright only show muscly black men on TV (so fucking blatantly eugenic), you're now interrupting this process and if you yell about fucking white males whilst you do it, it becomes obvious you're deliberately making intelligent men unattractive.
Like, humans, you don't even realise it. You just do it because you're so resentful.
...
I think it's a good practice. But there should not be a state program doing this. Removing most taxes and stopping subsidising stupid people/nonwhites should be enough.
Not sure what you are saying. Yes, if IQ has a relationship to income, and the ladies like income, then it makes sense that men with high IQ would have more sexual access. What follows from that? Thats the point here? This model is very simple and cannot assure positive evolution.
Like, asians have high levels of conformity, and low creativity. A society of smart asians would plausibly go no where. There is also sexual selection, and casual mating. Theres other effects of intelligence, like ambition and productivity, which tend to preclude family life, especially among high IQ women. Theres just a million things that could go wrong. Simple models like 'Ladies like smart guys!' really dont predict or explain anything.
pure-bred dogs are known to be imbred
Deserves at least one (you).
That's a big chicken.
Eugenics in adult humans will never make it past the ethics barrier. We can however, and very soon will do routine screenings of a crazy amount of embryos and only implant those which the parents like. This is essentially eugenics without any moral baggage. Human race will be improved dramatically.
You have have eugenics systems that aren't so hardcore. Like heavier taxes on one group over another. If you tax group A and not group B, Group A will have less kids over time as they can't support as many. The Jizya is an Islamic tax on non Muslims that does that function. The funny thing is that this is something that is already happening today. They take money from white workers and pass them to minorities in welfare, stunting the white population from growing and supplementing the minorities. Similar to how China is using taxes and migration as a ethnic genocide in Tibet.
>Not sure what you are saying.
That the game is still a foot, all that's changed are the goals.
>high IQ ... What follows from that? Thats the point here? This model is very simple and cannot assure positive evolution.
For starters, high IQ people are more likely to understand the categorical imperative, therefore less violence. Furthermore humanity is pretty tech hungry and not just for the gadgets, they're genuinely curious, so more of that. Lastly, because of the intense energy requirements of a strong mind less energy will be stored as fat, so no more obesity.
Trifecta, breed intelligence, receive low obesity, low violence and cool shit. How could you possibly fuck this up? What the fuck is wrong with you?
>Like, asians have high levels of conformity, and low creativity.
That's cultural. I'm almost certain. Of course high conformity/authoritarianism leads to low creativity, it's an over reliance, it's also why the recent authoritarian left sucks at argument.
>like ambition and productivity, which tend to preclude family life, especially among high IQ women.
How you're describing ambition is arguably greediness, a career is just how to pay bills until you get greedy. These days a woman could become greater by all the time being a stay at home mum affords, she could watch all the educational YouTube videos, read the entirety of Wikipedia then please me with interesting shit whilst I'm picking out her pubes from my teeth because the dirty bitch is still larping as a feminist.
>Simple models like 'Ladies like smart guys!' really dont predict or explain anything.
No, stop, shut up, ladies like smart guys and ladies like smart guys NOW!
No, because it's all too possible that in the process of selecting for the desired traits and eliminating the undesirable ones you inadvertently end up reforcing and breeding in less immediately perceptual defects which only become event generations down the line and your intended ubermench ends up being short lived and heavily predispositioned to cancers or some other aliment. We need a far more comprehensive understanding of our own genes, their expression, and how they interact with one another before eugenics becomes viable at which point one would likely simply be able to achieve the same thing in a single generation without the hassles and pitfalls of selective breeding through prenatal gene therapy and editing techniques. Furthermore in regards to the actual selection of traits what is considered a positive trait and what isn't changes across generations and cultures fairly quickly.
hark, is that the sound of the slippery slope myth? i think it is!
disregarding that for a moment, the basis of my proposal is to prevent people from turning their problem into someone else's. the child will most likely have to suffer the same disorder of the parent.
hitler simply killed everyone because he was a malicious cunt. i do not want to punish a person for simply having a problem that isnt their fault, i want to prevent them from turning their problem into that of another person through callous and idiotic decision making. i dont care if they want to adopt or fuck, i just dont want some kid having to come into the world with a clear disadvantage that will stick with him for the rest of his life because mommy and daddy thought it was ok to pass on their problems.
>you're now interrupting this process
I don't see any interruption of natural selection, it still works, but not in the direction you want.
I'm all for keeping those with serious handicaps from breeding at this point, honestly.
It's just a needless drain on society's resources. Besides, we can do the preventive portions of eugenics without preventing people from having sex now. God bless medical science.
Russia has such program m8, it moves full ahead to develop new type of rosiyanin more suited for imperial ambitions.
...
In theory it seems like a good idea.
The way humans are likely to be mistaken in regards to which genetics are desirable according to the environment, therefore creating further more difficult problems in the future, should be considered seriously.
All in all, like most things, there are pros and cons, and whether we have a moralistic argument against it it is still likely to happen regardless. It is most certainly practiced through some form or another already.
stop talking sense, this is Sup Forums
> comparing chick and grown hen
I think we're all responsible for our own genome, we can shit in it or make it fertile, but there are somethings outright science needs to remove. Trust me, when we appropriately identify real genetic disorders we'll remove them..
It's not easy to accept you're stained in such an intrinsic way, again, I likely have MS recessive but otherwise I'm a relatively impressive genetic specimen, a nice height, acceptable mind and I get fit easy. Why would I want to opt out of the race just because I have some markers to horrible disorders?
Your response is completely devoid of empathy, realise that no one wants that kind of eugenics, not just because of the slippery slope but also the damn principle behind it.
Get punched.
>works
Mate, your post is pure relativity, what works is based on what our goals are. I want a better human by trying to breed out our most intelligent humans you are not doing something that will result in a working society. Low IQ societies aren't workable without authoritarianism, so if we're above this threshold it's reckless not to use the benefits individualism can have.
With digits like that, I'm sure you're one of the Master Race yourself.
No. Because we don't know what traits are desirable in humans. And people in power won't admit there traits are bad.
proof would be with the ridiculous laws in the US regarding this in the early 20th century. Why ban someone with poor eyesight from having kids when we could just fix the problem of poor eyesight itself.
My mistake, disregard that. I suck cocks.
Mengele did nothing wrong, gas the kikes, race war now.
I am 100% in favour of soft eugenics
>Yes, if IQ has a relationship to income, and the ladies like income, then it makes sense that men with high IQ would have more sexual access. What follows from that?
Nothing. Intellect is self killing phenomenon. Smart people understand correlation between size of family and income of members of family. They understands that having kids reducing income and will being of other members of family. here come family planing and contraception. sexual access stops correlates with number of offsprings.
If you go further you see that problem is much fundamental than at first glance. Sex is utterly nonintellectual. Apotheosis of sex, orgasm, turns brains off completely. Actually not surprising. Tell someone who don't know nothing about sex "stick your pee holes into each other", "wew, disgusting, why will someone do that?". And here comes evolution with hackjob of sex appeal and orgasm: "stop thinking if you want to reproduce". Literally. But smarter people are the better they see past nature tricks and overcome them with contraception, tehy prepare themselves to the moment of losing mind (this is the power of mind be able to to anything even stay in controleven if there is no control) . Kids and sex is no more tied together and nature exploit falls apart.
So you broke instincts with mind then only consensual act of mind could fix it back, so eugenics.
Eugenics is outdated now, designer babies are the future.
>Any Eugenic Supporter Here?
yep
only eugenics that seek to increase intelligence, that is our best way forward
Le keks
Ftfy
>designer babies are the future.
Sounds good to me.
>devoid of empathy
maybe you missed the part about not wanting potential parents to be able to make their problem someone else's. why would i have the slightest concern for someone's wittle fee fees when they're about to pass their deficiencies onto someone else instead of simply adopting a kid to fill the gap? go ahead and adopt a child with deficiencies if you want, but dont condem someone NEW to bear them as well. let me remind you what happend the last time a bunch of people carelessly reproduced despite the genetic penalties involved: the dark ages. the euro royalties were completely contaminated by the penalties of inbreeding, and the retards birthed from this would go on to become society's problems as well. all because some people couldnt learn to keep their genitals apart.
>"when" we identify "real" disorders
being a psychopath on the genetic level. having an incurable and horrible disease like aids. being a midget and thus being slower (and in some sub-cases, having shorter lifespans). hyperplasia. and much much more. if members of the medical community are attempting to cure or prevent it, there is a good fucking chance it is a "real" disorder.
>the damn principle behind it
again, see the part about not allowing someone's problems to be passed on to others. individual responsibility for your actions is a far more important principle than being able to breed just because your biology drives you to.
>no one wants that kind of eugenics
relevance? why would i care what some selfish cunt wants to inflict on their potential kids? if you were to harm your kids because you wanted to, you would lose custody of them. why should someone thus be allowed to damn another person with an obvious, harmful flaw?
Perfected
Big cock
thicc!
Haters gonna hate but if I had kids I'd rather have them inhertied genes from 9/10 or 10/10 people, this is very practical I think
you can't believe in evolution and not believe in eugenics
shit works, the only thing stopping us from doing it is
>muh ethics
should eugenics be the future of just genetherapy
genetherapy is more ethical for sure
do you support eugenics knowing that you'll likely wont produce offspring?
You could create the same image with americans from those periods
The problem with 'hard' eugenics is that you must presume to understand what traits are actually adaptable. While this might be obvious in some particular instances (see: deadly syndromes and congenital diseases), you could end up erasing some traits we'll find desirable in the future. Imagine for instance the extreme scenario where some gene gives us mild jaundice so we choose to remove, only to -not- find out later on, it helped us combat some lethal pandemic super disease.
While this is an extreme scenario, manipulating traits should only be acceptable after we fully understand what we are doing.
This said, I would 100% support 'soft' eugenic practices in modern times, more specifically anti-disgenic practices. Such as removing welfare, banning mass media in privileged positions that sways the will of the masses to one way or the other, and fully making parents responsible for their children to the point where you they're fully their property, even if they decide to have a post-birth abortion.
Welfare unfairly transfers resource from seemingly successful individuals to less successful ones, while this might sound moral, it is only so sustainable, as it rewards R type reproduction type people, who ought to have 60% or more of their offspring die were it not for cucked K types who keep their offspring at full efficiency. This is probably the most damaging disgenic practice, even more so when in a society that is not homogenous and isn't willing to involve itself in this transfer of resources.
cont.
The involvement of mass media in brainwashing and swaying the population to act on a false belief speaks for itself, it fucks with the natural course of sexual selection. It is unsustainable, as it depends on an artificial medium that will not always be available instead of solely the environment around individuals.
As for children being their parents own responsibility, it's another type of tax on successful people. Having children and raising them is our biological imperative, not some casualty of war we should all suffer. If the parents are not successful their genes mustn't pass on, as the first example, it rewards the unfit, and will become unsustainable once our fit population is too scarce to sustain the system. It will eventually collapse into itself.
Remember, the moral quality of something is a luxury we worry about after something works, if something doesn't work and is destined to fall apart then it shouldn't matter how great it sounds on paper. See: communism
Picture unrelated
Eugenics is known to make inbreds. People should not play God.
yes.
reproduction isn't a human right, nor it should be.
people shouldn't just be free to reproduce as they like because that doesn't affect them but all of society.
I think we should start with voluntary sterilization in a form of having some billion $ fund that will finance say blacks with some universal basic income for life if they agree to sterilize themselves. That way you can't claim it's unethical because they choose it themselves in order to have a life of leisure.
Any reading recommendations about this theme?
We are doing eugenics though, but we're doing it wrong.
>reproduction isn't a human right, nor it should be.
dummest thing I read in a long time
eugenics isn't genetic engineering, it is solely the prevention of someone from doing what we already know will result in shit.
i concur with the first part. however i am not fond of singling out a group based on race as opposed to both income and medical history (intelligence based on success, combined with not having any serious health problems, mostly). i also do not see a reason to pay them for what should not be a right. but then again, i'm the guy who would gladly sterilize himself just so i dont have to ever worry about kids.
Clearly. What does OP think they were trying to achieve? Bigger red dangle/mohawk things?
why is it dumb?
why should making another human being be a human right that you have? why should you be allowed to just that?
Are you doing it in vacuum? Is that decision not going to affect everyone in the society for years to come?
Simply put, people need not exist. You can have a perfectly fine civilization with 1/100 of the population we have today. And then logically, if they don't need to exist they shouldn't.
You can achieve this goal through incentivized or forced sterilization in just one generation easily.
>singling out a group based on race
did you get lost or something?
when it comes down to it, people don't group based on their eye color or hair color, they do it based on their race. That's the default. You want to remove like 99% of all conflict from humanity? First kill off all but one race, and then unite said race under one state. European state.
Because remember, whites aren't the issue. WHites are around 1 billion today and they are projected to be around 1 billion 100 years from today!
While blacks for example are around 1 billion today but by 2100 they will be 6 billion. That simply shouldn't be allowed.
why would i make race the default? if i get, say, a nigger and a chink who both believe in similar political and social ideologies, they will get along just fine. contrast that to 2 whites, but one is a sjw and the other is a hardcore Sup Forumsack, the shit will fly.
to that end i cite a personal experience. several years ago i reconnected with an old friend whose political views were, at the time, directly opposite to my own. things were somewhat shaky, but i became increasingly right-winged as we hung out, and our friendship improved because that ideological conflict was removed.
but this is besides the point. blacks multiplying at this rate is only a problem because of the shit they do on the side (crime, welfare, child abandonment, etc). if a white guy did this i would be all over him too. the problem isn't the skin, it's some of the shit that seems to come with it. why focus on a practically arbitrary aspect when we can single out the actual problems? forget targeting the skin, lets get rid of the leeches and criminals.
also, regarding the "european state," every damn country in europe has a different culture, and somehow those fuckers can identify what country other euros are from just by looking at them. it's like the warlords in niggerland all over again, who somehow identify people as being members of some sub-group when they all look (at least to me) the same.
...
kek