why don't governments have eugenics programs? What is wrong with finding the smartest, strongest best specimens in society to breed? I don't understand the stigma behind eugenics? no one is taking your ability to breed away, just because two geniuses make a little genius doesn't mean we'll stop you from fucking a retard.
We should have a eugenics dating app to get the smartest people together.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
jstor.org
twitter.com
It's a slippery slope the same way identity politics are. But there's nothing wrong with the concept itself. It would be hugely beneficial for the humanity in the long term.
>What is wrong with eugenics?
The "Best" traits that government eugenics programs usually go for, is blind obedience, and stupidity.
That's what.
It's all fine until you're the one deemed unfit to breed
It's based on oversimplified notions of heredity and easily used for political purposes unrelated to a healthy population.
I think most serious eugenists would be happy not to breed if it meant the society was going to take eugenics seriously.
For every Kwisatz Haderach, you get an Alia.
Do you really want an Alia?
we are in eugenics program right now
why do you think elites swarm us with migrants?
The government can barely figure out how to do a fucking website, and they're supposed to be intelligent enough to set the standards for a eugenics program?
Now if we have a program for positive eugenics, like they gave huge monetary incentives for intelligent successful people to have children then that might not be too bad. We're still too dumb as a species to effectively implement negative eugenics.
I'm not talking about preventing retards from breeding, I'm talking about matchmaking. eugenics in the past tried to exterminate humans with undesired traits, but nothing prevents finding humans with desired traits to get them together.
The only thing wrong with it is that we have a democratic system in place in the civilized world and among that constituency we have too many people who would be culled from the herd. Therefore, they would never support it as it is not in their personal interest. If it were to happen, however, we would be colonizing the stars by now. Imagine a world without niggers and other lesser humans. Imagine a world without all of the problems they bring. Eugenics is the only way to cut the albatross from humanity's neck.
The only problem is people's perception of it.
They think the government has to enact forcible NEGATIVE eugenics.
The reality is that proper POSITIVE eugenics is completely effective through education and social norms, e.g., social rejection of race-mixers.
>Do you really want an Alia?
Do i? Fuck yeah.
I would say a simple dating app that gets people together based on their intelligence and accomplishments.
I still think that's a little retarded, but perhaps that could work.
How do you feel about negative eugenics?
>selective breeding doesn't work
meanwhile in reality.
Best thing we humas as a species would have ever created.
already tried and doesn't work
also, its not that simple
look at dogs, forced evolution ends badly usually also there must be reason why mutts usually are more intelligent
we don't need to look far even as for natural evolution, jews for example
highly intelligent
do you wanna be a left leaning souless kike tho?
I'm not talking about negative eugenics, I'm talking about programs that influence certain people to get together. OR finding people willing to join such a program.
That's not eugenics then.
True, but I'm pretty sure most people aren't serious about it.
Thanks for proving my point.
Dumb people are reproducing at an exponentially large rate. The only way to reverse this trend is to sterilize the entire continent of Africa or just kill them all. I still don't think this is a bad thing to do, as the long term rewards would be infinitely beneficial. Even if we make the cutoff at like 90 IQ or simply base it on skin color we would be doing the world an infinite good.
Proving your point? you asserted that selective breeding doesn't work, the image is of a bull that was selectively bred for muscle.
I highly disagree. While if you sterlized somebody with some genetic disease, there are also other traits that you would be eliminating from being passed on.
>look at dogs, forced evolution ends badly usually also there must be reason why mutts usually are more intelligent
The thing about dog breeds though is that there were tons of unhealthy practices implemented to produce desired traits such as inbreeding. Also mutts are much less prone to health.
I understand you weren't, I was simply asking for your opinion. I do support positive eugenics since we're basically doing the opposite right now with welfare. Incentivising low intelligence, low achieving people to have tons of children without needing to learn how to acquire resources.
I think forcing women to abort retarded/malformed fetuses is necessary, but almost everything else is pretty controversial IMO.
That cow can't even survive in the wild though.
no need
just make it legal for family members to kill each other
...
We need to figure out how to leave the planet and colonize other worlds, for that we are going to need super intelligent people. the retards are just a labor force...that will admittedly become irrelevant when robotics really takes off in society.
>Even if we make the cutoff at like 90 IQ
What if somebody is having a bad day when they take an IQ test or what if somebody
You can selectively breed a cow that can survive in the wild though. they choose the traits they wanted out of the cow, they didn't want a wild cow.
Kinda funny how most people that advocate for eugenics think they'll be above the cut off.
True. Just saying though that that cow is a monstrosity.
It's a stigma because hitler lost ww2 and now cuckservatives can't stop reminding people how margaret sanger was a eugenecist.
IT's meant to be killed and eaten. who cares what it looks like.
There is a distinction between positive and negative eugenics though. I would never say in public I believe in positive eugenics, but I would say "Yeah we need to figure out how to get smart people to have kids instead of raising pets".
It does seem like OP is talking more about positive eugenics though.
I know I wouldn't be, I have genetic health issues. But I support eugenics so that people like me could be reduced or eliminated. I still contribute to society, but I just don't think I should be able to breed.
>For every Kwisatz Haderach, you get an Alia.
Nah, Alia happened because jessica drank while pregnant.
The problem with Hitler has he thought aesthetic features made a race superior. Blonde haired blue eyes seem pretty stupid now, since they let a bunch of sand niggers in their countries to rape their women.
But what other traits, that we would regard as beneficial, do you have that would also be prevented from being passed on? My biggest problem with it is that a small group of people, whether they be scientists, some kind of bureaucracy, etc., would be in charge of shaping the country they are in charge of. It has historically been a pretty bad idea to give that much power to a small organization.
I have a high IQ, but my family has a history of poor eyesight. But poor eyesight is irrelevant now since it can be corrected with lasik surgery.
There are many possible unintended consequences for eugenic policies (imagine the genetic equivalent of the rabbits in Australia), and it's a very difficult thing to agree on which traits are "better."
Obviously negative eugenics will never actually happen so you're all wasting time discussing it.
If you realistically want something similar to the end result of "eugenics" there are a couple policy objectives that come to mind.
1. End the welfare state. So many useless people are born simply because dumb/poor people face no real repercussions for having a shit ton of kids.
2. Legalize abortion. It disproportionately affects dumb/poor people to a huge degree. Sorry if you don't like it.
3. Provide monetary/government incentives for people to have kids ONLY IF they are in a stable, well-off relationship, making enough money to comfortably support children, or too busy for kids because they are pursuing higher education or careers. Again, this disproportionately weeds out the bad lot.
4. Make a system of immigration that takes in the best of the best rather than letting millions of Mexicans pour in as we do now.
Follow these realistic objectives and the country is off to a good start.
>le subhuman meme
I think the problem is who gets to decide which traits are the best. Some are obvious like genetic diseases but some are really subjective.
>le stoopid people with a bajillion kids meme
Perhaps you could use other forms of measurement like SAT scores, or how well he did in school. Those also have a good correlation with IQ, just to be sure.
Sterilize the Poor, the Retarded, the Deformed, the Degenerate.
This x100
It doesn't work, it will never work in a free or "free" society. Only when governments have absolute control can it even remotely work. Besides, you fucking know the end game will always be worthless cosmetic shit over actual traits. No one will be in favor of selectively breeding for intellect and strength over beauty, and people excluded from the process have no incentive of continuing to abide by the social contract. You need to keep up the illusion of "you're only poor/single, because you're lazy/unlucky". Once it's set in stone that you have no chance in hell of reproducing or prospering, society crumbles.
I think accomplishments should be considered as well.
>1.
Completely agree
>2.
I sort of turn a blind eye to abortion for this reason, however child sacrifice should not be acceptable in a civilized society. I also believe #1 will solve most of this issue
>3.
That's the whole point of tax-breaks for married people. Now that fags can get married we can incentivize them spreading aids.
4.
Completely agree. Immigration policy should be there to benefit the native population, not elites who want to pay beaners less money.
Wow, i was going to give a big spiel on the practical advantages and reasons for eugenics programmes but you've effectively rendered that impotent now.
Robotics will be the killing blow for sub-120s
because the most important thing in the world is the feelings of subhumans. this is what our society values
at least in my country's case the people who were determining who got sterilized were themselves retarded and wrongfully sterilized a bunch of people
It doesn't work outside of maybe reducing the genetic chance for certain diseases and disorders.
It's impossible to predict personality through genetics, so you'll still get psychos, you'll still get pedos and fags and cowards and rapists, and worst of all, you'll still get Liberals.
Plus genetic diversity is healthy and crucial to an organisms adaptation. It's literally unnatural and if we got too far into it, could cause us to go extinct or nearly so from a lack of natural genetic diversity.
Because genetics aren't advanced enough to guarantee that there won't be some unforeseen repercussions or that we won't accidentally wipe out some genes that we find out were actually really useful we just didn't know it.
Genetic engineering is the way to go, we just have to be careful.
But is breeding an inalienable right? If we truly value children then should we not have some test to determine whos a fit parent and whos not? In america we have a huge barrier to adoption but any meth head can get knocked up and fuck up some childs life forever. We license people for guns and cars, why not children?
>why don't governments have eugenics programs?
They have, it's called "blanda up".
Spoken like a person with zero experience in animal husbandry.
Mutts are not more likely to be more intelligent dogs. Mutts are completely unpredictable in how their temperament and abilities turn out. That the thing with mutts they can be the best dogs ever or the worst. With a pedigree dog they are generally very predictable in all aspects.
But what if said individual has a high resistance to certain diseases or other traits that would be deemed beneficial? We can't build society with only one "breed" of person either so while intelligence might be an important factor, it's not the only thing needed for a well functioning society.
Look at Steven Hawking, would he be prevented from breeding?
Damn, that succinctly explains my belief in eugenics.
One reason is that eugenics is an attempt to draw out traits for an artificial environment rather than a natural one. True eugenics occurs naturally, it's called evolution. Trying to create an artificial environment to reduce natural selection is anti-Darwinian and philosophically contradictory.
Technology is a far more viable way of pursuing the dream of a material "superman" anyway, without the need to sterilise short-sighted people and count the number of hairs in a person's nose to judge if their genetic existence has a "right" to continue.
>implying Sup Forums isn't already unfit to breed
>We license people for guns and cars, why not children?
Spotted the fag. I've only ever heard homosexuals make this argument.
Almost everyone supported eugenics until Hitler did. That's the only reason people don't now and it's illogical.
Because jews don't want to be blown the fuck out of the water, they barely contain whites as they are.
But diseases will always evolve naturally, and things like viruses evolve much faster than we could ever keep up even with genetic engineering.
The common cold virus evolves multiple times each season which is why cold and flu vaccines hardly ever seem to work. I think we could work on making people resistant to the more crippling illnesses as medicine has always tried to do, but in the end I don't know how much it would matter.
Yes, but we are already doing that by artificially keeping the week alive and letting them breed. Having lost our natural stimulus to influence our evolution, it is necessary to take it into our own hands.
weak
no.
Yeah, this was the one thing that Hitler did wrong.
Breeding is the purpose of all animals. I'm just saying we should figure out ways to guide the who-with-who.
First attempts were ugly and gave Eugenics a bad name.
It was common, faggot. Why do you think we have abortion clinics?
en.wikipedia.org
Hitler youths were breeding only for aesthetic traits though.
Are you a fucking moron? Literally hundreds of thousands of responsible, working, intelligent citizens have made this argument. I've been talking about this with my friends since fucking high school. Anyone who has a job and pays thousands in taxes so that welfare ghetto niggers can shoot out 5 kids that will grow up to also be welfare ghetto niggers has thought about this.
The value it restores to human life (that was stripped away by abortion) would be phenomenal. The only issue is having some government agency responsible for allowing you to reproduce, so it's a pretty difficult issue to actually propose.
The theory, though, is brilliant and should be considered.
I'd suggest rebranding it as selective breeding, but people get squeamish when you compare them with animals. Even though...humans are animals.
what's wrong with it?
What's wrong with it is that governments don't want you to be genetically superior ;)
Well, iq and intelligance are just one of the requirements. Of course there are other abilities worth of preserving and passing on.
>negative eugenics will never actually happen
How is this different from taking money from more successfull so that less successfull can have more kids, AKA welfare? I agree with the rest.
>but some are really subjective.
Like what?
For almost all genetic traits it's really obvious if they're good or not.
Things like intelligence, health, willpower/self-discipline, not being a total dickhead or having some other personality disorder, happiness (apparently very much genetic, some people are unhappy no matter how well they do in life and vice versa).
Even if most of them were subjective, how about picking people based only on the obviously not subjective traits?
The real problem is that if you start force sterilizing people they climb on the barricades faster than you can say "abort that retard". But actually even that's not much of a problem since instead of forced sterilization you could pay much greater child support for those with good genetics. That would have the downside that those with good good genetics would often just stay home and raise a family instead of working, and they're usually the most useful people to have working. But with automation taking over a lot of jobs, there will be many genetically fit people without jobs, who might as well be encouraged to have a big family. Another option would be to pay families to have a genetically fit baby adopted (or the woman getting inseminated with übermensch sperm) instead of them getting a shit gened baby by their own means. Many would happily accept, you get money and you get a baby with superior genes.
So I guess the real real problem is, once again, Hitler.
> just because two geniuses make a little genius doesn't mean we'll stop you from fucking a retard.
intelligence is not inherited, it is taught
Negative eugenics is cruel, but nothing's preventing positive eugenics...hell I bet Asian countries have already been doing positive eugenics. why you think they jumped 15 IQ points in a hundred years.
brain capacity is though.
>Anyone who has a job and pays thousands in taxes so that welfare ghetto niggers can shoot out 5 kids that will grow up to also be welfare ghetto niggers has thought about this.
I've never once thought this was an acceptable solution.
There shouldn't need to be licenses for having children. Truthfully there aren't for guns or cars either, until you decide to enter public property. Buy a car and drive it without a license all day long on your property.
The barrier to having children used to be finding gainful employment or otherwise providing value to the economy. That sounds much better than some crust old assholes with stamps in some government office determining if somebody should have kids.
Also if you had slightly better reading comprehension you would notice that I said "I have only heard fags make this argument," not "Only fags make this argument."
no i don't have any experience
i didn't try to imply i have fucking Ph.D in that or something
thanks for correction tho
also no one addressed my example with jews, you have no inbreeding(at least to a minimum), thousand years of relatively same culture pushing into literacy and excelling in arts and wham, jews have majority in holders of nobel prizes.
its relatively minor, and natural kind of "eugenics" but we all know how it ended.
this is why forcing people in one path with high "intelligence and accomplishments" as OP stated might be dangerous and pushing people blindly in more than one might end in what we have now, identity politics on massive scale.
why not just try to being best at being what you are and focus on your own race, culture and nation?
Doesn't have to be a crusted old ass, could be cold calculating computer making the decision based entirely on genetics.
Well then how do you determine that? How do you breed enough people to fill all the different niches in a society?
With dog breeds, dogs are bred with different purposes in mind. Not "We're going to create the perfect dog, ein uberhund" It's best just to get rid of welfare and let nature take it's course.
>Sup Forums wants the government to have even more power over people's lives
Guess it's all over, then...
More seriously, nature and an open economic system (without the subsidised children) makes for the most robust eugenics program. It's a little slow, but we still have millions of years before our sun goes to shit.
The irony is you still won't get laid
Then it's only as good as the people who programmed it.
What trait do they want though??
>doesn't mean we'll stop you from fucking a retard.
It's actually illegal for retards to breed
In democracies the people must remain dumb to elect (((them))), its just needed few intelligent men to keep society working
By "negative eugenics" I mean literally preventing people from reproduction by way of sterilization, extermination, etc. Culling the gene pool.
obedience, low intelligence, relatively fit and good reaction to stimuli
blacks and arabs are mostly like children in adult bodies, perfect slave caste.
they want obedient sheeps that will buy their iphones and bigmacs and that will never put them in an oven ever again
Are we going to be fighting aliens soon? What's wrong with the weak?
>open economic system (without the subsidised children) makes for the most robust eugenics program.
Sure, if the goal of your fertility program is to make people stupid and lazy. Income and education are two factors that very heavily correlate with decreased fertility, since people like that tend to have a career, and no time to have children. At least not for more than maybe one or two.