Sup Forums, are there any real arguments against eugenics aside from muh feelings?

Sup Forums, are there any real arguments against eugenics aside from muh feelings?

Nope

not really.
you'd have to be pretty Vulcan though to exterminate something that has half of your DNA though, or if you're female was growing within you for 9 months.

rare? can an oldfag chime in?

yeah if you care about functioning societies
equality is a myth

No there isn't. Eugenics is the path to an ultimate humanity. However I'm also pretty confident that the future of DNA editing will make it so we don't need eugenics. Just got to make sure the kikes/cucks don't label DNA editing "unethical"

Would cause a war, even if you just sterilize undesirables.

Genetics is still not perfectly understood, so there are unpredictable outcomes from certain combinations. Also biology is also imperfectly understood, so what may appear to be a desirable trait could actually be detrimental in an unforeseen way.

There is no meta-perspective from which to decide for which qualities eugenics should be applied. Accordingly:

Eugenics is ONLY self-reinforcing, it has no utility except making the resulting population better at eugenics, which in turn has no utility.

Was thinking about this recently - still support eugenics, but it we are all genetically similar (crispr-modified superhumans) then any kind of environmental threat, like a supervirus, becomes much more of an existential threat. What if we get into an interstellar war where it's a numbers game and we only have a population of high quality/low quantity supermen?

Eugenics will be popular again in near future, even more than before and much more effective due to biotechnological advancement and DNA editing

>or if you're female was growing within you for 9 months.

Not really. If it's growing inside you and it comes out as a drooling potato that is in pain 24/7 and can't poop on its own, well...

Well if you believe that everyone is created in the image of God, then yeah no shit it is Antichrist.

If you are without faith and hope, then of course it probably would be a good idea. Hell, you could even be really creepy and try to justify the shit morally and ethically like abortion.

Look at Ashkenzi Jews, they used eugenics to boost their avg IQ, they have the highest avg IQ of all races, but all the incest gave birth to bodies that are weak on a genetic level. There is always a price you have to pay, eugenics is a good way to increase the avg IQ, avg strenght etc, but sometimes you need fresh genetics to refresh the gene pool.

We could use eugenics to boost the avg IQ of black people, would result in a lower crime rate and a more productive society.

Uncommon, and perhaps of some use to somebody who only began collecting recently, but not truly rare.

I've been thinking about it. If you by eugenics mean to apply actual eugenics to all of humanity then I think there might be an argument against that. Too tired to elaborate a lot, but I think that perhaps within a global system of eugenics it will inevitably become necessary to apply dysgenic policies to a part of humanity.

all I'm saying is the decision if not clouded by sentimentality and emotion (read: female) would be difficult.
Pacific Islanders would drown babies with birth defects, and early life termination was common practice until Judeo-Christian beliefs took hold.

I wouldn't be alive. Nothing else.

If you don't see the arguments against eugenics, you most likely would have been stomped out by eugenics due to 'potentially low iq'.

I mean, the moral arguments are so obvious along with the blatant negative effect on society.

Is believing that murder is a sin and intentionally causing the death of even the most retarded baby would damn your soul "muh feelings"? Because belief is the only non-muh feelings argument I can come up with, but it could conceivably be categorized as muh feelings as well

So you'd prefer the species be inherited by undesirables?

Genuine question: What are the negative effects on society you foresee?

Please explain.

Sterilizing people is murder?

>If you don't see the arguments against eugenics, you most likely would have been stomped out by eugenics due to 'potentially low iq'.

The reason it hasn't been done yet is that stupid people would fight back. That's an argument. Anyone with an IQ below 100 should lose their right to breed though.

>I mean, the moral arguments are so obvious

>So obvious I couldn't possibly write them

>It's the CURRENT YEAR

Scratch that, thought eugenics included killing cripples. The only arguments against forced sterilization I can think of are rights-based and morals-based

IQ isn't efficient, what would be better is making a well made and studied education/school program and whoever doesn't make it through loses his right to breed

>IQ below 100

NO, NO, NO, more like IQ below 130, we dont want a society of retarded fags.

No problem as long as you only remove people with clear genetic defects. But if you start prosecuting a significant part of population they will fight back and here is no guarantee that you will win.

>They're so obvious. Oh my god. It's so wrong, I just can't say why. Wow, um, like, you're an idiot if you don't see why it's wrong..
Inferior faggot.

DNA editing will be the future...at least I hope. I've been working so hard to study and create this and for some nu-male weakling to come and tell me it's unethical would make me rage.

Genetic diversity is still important. But scientists will know about this danger and cover that.

Governments will most likely be in control of gene editing which can be both good and bad. Ever seen that clone army in star wars? Well the government will get the top athletes/soldiers from different countries and their own to create a clone army. Make it so they age twice as fast and give them a high IQ so that they will learn easily in the 9 years they have before they become ready to become a soldier.

Basically if the government gets hold of the tech they will create Blonde hair blue eyed superhumans coming straight out of Warhammer.

Any time you increase the power over the individual, you create risk.

That risk is that the power you've created could, in fact, be used by your enemies.

Think Nuclear Option in judge confirmations. Think excessive executive orders for accomplishing tasks around slow Congress/Senate. These were privileges the left created that they whine and complain that the right are using.

Let's say, for instance, that eugenics is created for the sake of preserving white people. The powers created for eugenics are controlled by the government. The government switches from being controlled by the right, to being controlled by the left. Now the people in power want to see the abolition of white people. And have the power of Eugenics.

TL;DR You know not what you do, cease this faggotry.

Also this.

Assuming we decide to use flesh.

The ones doing the selective work might not have the best interests in mind.