Why is eugenics considered evil?

Why is eugenics considered evil?

Other urls found in this thread:

charlierose.com/videos/18174
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

hilter

Hitler.
Also most people in the current cultural zeitgeist, to the extent that they can be considered to have any intellectual grounding in ethics whatsoever are some type of meme individualist who can't comprehend any type of utilitarian arguments or individual sacrifice for a public net good.

Fear of obsolescence.

It's just seems so evil to me

Like just imagine imagine telling some kid with a tumor growing out of his face, "sorry kiddo, we could've prevented this but eugenics is wrong lol."

Fucking liberals man

because people don't want to accept the fact that they are inherently inferior to other people
and fuck putting the effort in to distancing yourself from the pack

Ah fuck, I hate phoneposting

Because your entire moral sense is different than theirs.

eirlht

Because people are insecure.

Because Yakub created evil ass crackas

because historically, eugenics were conducted using violence. There's literally nothing wrong with non-violent eugenics though, voluntary action in improving the gene pool by encouraging better genes to propagate, rather than eliminating the bad ones outright through force. Positive Eugenics, look it up

It presupposes that we have a sufficient understanding of genetics and human society such that it could be improved if guided by human reason (the material reason it doesn't work) and it denies the value of man by declaring that people with certain physical characteristics (like brown eyes, or a below-average IQ) are worthless and shouldn't be around (the reason we shouldn't do it).

Now, I didn't mention racemixing at all, since obviously racemixing is bad. This refers more to eugenics as the idea of "improving the race"

>and it denies the value of man by declaring that people with certain physical characteristics (like brown eyes, or a below-average IQ) are worthless and shouldn't be around (the reason we shouldn't do it).
Wait, why is that the reason we *shouldn't* do it?

apparently it makes them feel bad by reminding them that they're worthless, because they actually are worthless (people with poorer genes perform poorly, who knew?)

Because (((elites))) don't want competition.

Reducing man to certain physical characteristics denies the inherent dignity of man and the value of human life. Shouldn't you know that if you're using that flag?

Yea, i don't get that. Like, i have no problem admitting there are people out there with greater skills than myself.

>Reducing man to certain physical characteristics denies the inherent dignity of man and the value of human life.
>inherent dignity
>value of life
Quantify these.
>Shouldn't you know that if you're using that flag?
Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius

Your genetics are just what you have in potentially fulfillable potential. Plenty of people with high IQs don't actualise their potential for intelligence by wasting it on things like video games, intellectual laziness, etc.

What is eugenics?

Because most of us would be killed off or not allowed to exist.

From the Catechism:

>1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

Creating superior offsprings by letting only superior individuals fuck. That's why eugenics is bad: because untermenschen want to fuck and have kids, too.

ENVY OF EUGENE

>From the Catechism:
Not Catholic. Don't care.

Most people with the templar flag are LARPers who just shout "DEUS VULT". The other are just meming about "muh christian values" and believe that God the Forgiving has the same views as they have.

at least in canada's case the eugenics board was run by people who were themselves morons

lead to a ton of non tards being sterilized and loads of bad press all around

it also had a ton of support from the early suffragist movements too, loads of early canadian feminists were staunch racists and wanted indians, blacks and retards sterilized

All you have to do is encourage less intelligent people to have fewer children and vice versa. Not ban them from breeding.

Over a few generations average intelligence increases substantially, and we don't overpopulate. We're experiencing an opposite effect at the moment; relatively smart people have been breeding below replacement rate for two generations.

The same argument works just as well without making it genetic. If success was purely cultural, that is, family culture, then it would be just as helpful to incentivise successful people to reproduce at a higher rate than unsuccessful people.

that is true, but even traits like laziness and such are still influenced by genetics to an extent. Better genes still generally make better people, and that much cannot be disregarded as "oh but they might just squander it anyways by their own choice like laziness" -- the likelihood of them squandering it in the first place may very well been genetically predisposed and thus can be countered!

not if it was non-violent eugenics. Think about it this way, I'm sure nobody would have any problems whatsoever with cutting gibs on poor genes (typically niggers) and providing support to just the unlucky and unfortunate with better genes (typically whites)

no gassing, no persecution, just a change in priority and acknowledgement that yes, some genes are better than others, some races (nothing more a common set of genes) more deserving if it means a purer, cleaner, superior genetic future for everyone

it is a moral imperative not to give the unborn shittier genes

Just because you're not Catholic doesn't mean you can dismiss the line of reasoning because you don't like it.

If you began to exist as a form in the mind of God (the ultimate good that gives structure to and sustains the universe in existence from moment to moment), then it follows logically that you have certain worth as an individual, even if you were born with certain physical imperfections (like a missing limb or Down's Syndrome). Therefore it is wrong to decide that people have no worth if they were born with these imperfections.

I know, but I like to call out bullshitters so it's all good

Better genes could make better people if everyone actualised their potential to the maximum extent possible, which isn't the case. And even if there was such a thing as a predisposition to laziness, it still doesn't negate the effect that the human will and the moral choices of the individual make on how they end up. Such a person might have a very hard time actualising their potential, but the fact that they do it still makes them a better person than the "smart" and "high IQ" nerd who gloats over his superiority and plays videogames all day while smoking weed, while not accomplishing anything useful or learning anything

>Most people with the templar flag are LARPers who just shout "DEUS VULT".
Ayup.

>Just because you're not Catholic doesn't mean you can dismiss the line of reasoning because you don't like it.
It does, though. I'm not beholden to the Vatican's mewling. That's the point of Protestantism.
>If you began to exist as a form in the mind of God, then it follows logically that you have certain worth as an individual
You're assuming that there isn't a zero point in that worth, though. Or that the worth might be as a warning to do better, and thus help more people.
>Therefore it is wrong to decide that people have no worth if they were born with these imperfections.
False.

Nobody should be able to tell another person whether or not they can have children.

I mean, here is just one example of why eugenics is stupid.

Were eugenics practiced, Professor Stephen Hawking would have never been born.

Just because a person is 'defective' in one way does not mean that they can not excellent in others.

Because that reveals the truth that some people are born better than others.
It hurts the minds of those who are not as genetically endowed.

charlierose.com/videos/18174

Go to 42:30 in the video above. James Watson and EO WIlson talk openly about genetic differences in races that account for mental differences.

>Were eugenics practiced, Professor Stephen Hawking would have never been born.
No, he just wouldn't be able to have kids.
And you're ignoring Positive Eugenics.
>Just because a person is 'defective' in one way does not mean that they can not excellent in others.
True. But that doesn't necessarily translate to requiring them to exist.

>eugenics
Its up to god

This is the issues with Protestantism. You reject logical argument in favour of flashy displays of the will. You haven't actually argued against what I said, you just told me that you disagree with it, except for this bad argument:

>You're assuming that there isn't a zero point in that worth, though. Or that the worth might be as a warning to do better, and thus help more people.

This is actually a circular argument that comes from your conclusions and circles back around. You assume that some people are worthless and exist only for the benefit of a few, and in doing so you then argue that God creates worthless people, which results in some people being worthless. No logic to it whatsoever.

If, at some point, God (the source of all that is good, as I said before) decided to bring you as an individual into existence, that's significant. Your purpose isn't to be purposeless.

>human will and the moral choices of the individual make on how they end up
...which still have roots in genetic predisposition. I think you underestimate the extent genes play beyond phenotypic characteristics, when personality, aptitude, and drive can all be affected. I am not saying these are absolutes, that the life of an individual is set in stone by genes or anything, but I am saying that while you preach about maximizing self potential, I say that maximizing genetic potential is also mutually possible

get everyone to start a better hand, you know? who wouldn't want that -- to be stronger, smarter, tougher, HEALTHIER for god's sake, and from a more perfect genetic foundation. It is an edge, an advantage, that all can be given through eugenics and eugenics only. We can completely eliminate genetic diseases and genetically undesirable traits so much faster with gene editing + eugenics

And this doesn't have to be violent!

Actually I was talking about CRISPR t b h

Sure, positive eugenics sounds nice, but people are wired to want to pass on their genes. That is never going to change. For eugenics to be successful, it will have to be done against the will of those it is imposed on.

That is why it is considered evil.

You don't even need that. With selective breeding projects, you could start right now! Oddly, no nation has really done this. I guess the logistics is too much.

>Nobody should be able to tell another person whether or not they can have children.

Too bad because we already do that for people with terrible genetic condition. And if we didn't, nature does.

>You haven't actually argued against what I said
And you haven't stated why i should adhere to it.
>You assume that some people are worthless and exist only for the benefit of a few,
Have you not seen downies, or those kids born without brains?
>and in doing so you then argue that God creates worthless people
No, God created people in general by letting us evolve to this state. There have always been mistakes and dead ends. We don't need to bow and scrape to the genetic failures.
> God (the source of all that is good
And here you have childish logic. God is the source of all. Good is just what you like.

>For eugenics to be successful, it will have to be done against the will of those it is imposed on.
Not always. You can just propose incentives. Will is easily changed, after all. But even going whole hog isn't evil, since it benefits the many over the few.

It literally has to be enforced in order to be effective, which would mean the systematic killing of "lesser" people soviet union style.

it's an abomination

a sin against nature and God, humans are perfect the way they are

>For eugenics to be successful, it will have to be done against the will of those it is imposed on.
not necessarily. A change in welfare priority can do wonders -- just do not support bad genes. You're not actively trying to genetically exterminate them by force or anything, they can still reproduce if they can somehow gather the means of doing so (good luck, niggers)

We just cannot continue funding such bad genes to continue and impose bad genes on the unborn when they arrive

>...which still have roots in genetic predisposition. I think you underestimate the extent genes play beyond phenotypic characteristics, when personality, aptitude, and drive can all be affected. I am not saying these are absolutes, that the life of an individual is set in stone by genes or anything, but I am saying that while you preach about maximizing self potential, I say that maximizing genetic potential is also mutually possible

Whatever the root cause of it, we're basically saying the same thing to an extent. To put it clearer: not everyone lives up to their full potential, and 25% of 2 (0.5) is obviously less than 75% of 1 (0.75).

>get everyone to start a better hand, you know? who wouldn't want that -- to be stronger, smarter, tougher, HEALTHIER for god's sake, and from a more perfect genetic foundation. It is an edge, an advantage, that all can be given through eugenics and eugenics only. We can completely eliminate genetic diseases and genetically undesirable traits so much faster with gene editing + eugenics

No, this is neo-Victorian garbage. How do you know, for example, that making the population as a whole have a higher IQ is a good thing? Maybe this will turn people into overintellectual pussies who can't (or won't) stand up for themselves, or a variety of other potential side effects that we can't anticipate beforehand? It's hubristic.

>How do you know, for example, that making the population as a whole have a higher IQ is a good thing?
Because we're better off now than we were 4000 years ago?
There will always be the pussies, but the base level will be raised, which benefits everyone.

>But even going whole hog isn't evil, since it benefits the many over the few.
Of course it is. That would be denying a person their natural right to reproduce if successful in finding a mate. Allowing them to do so is not detrimental to people who do not have disorders. Likewise, removing them provides no benefit.

Also as pointed out, nature is actually already pretty good and weeding out genetic disorders; it just takes time. A person with a severe disability is far less likely to find a mate than someone without one.

The far bigger problem is black culture, not their genes.

You maybe.

>Have you not seen downies, or those kids born without brains?

Downies aren't the same as children born without brains, since downies, if left to their own thing, will not die because of their imperfection. But nonetheless, if you talk to people who work with downies, you'll see that they have the full range of human emotions, but with an impaired mental function. So they are still humans. Imperfect humans, but humans.

>No, God created people in general by letting us evolve to this state. There have always been mistakes and dead ends. We don't need to bow and scrape to the genetic failures.

I have intentionally not made any reference at all to creationism or evolution, since that's not the point either way. But the mere fact that someone is born with a clubfoot or with dimples doesn't mean they are a "genetic failure" and have no worth as human beings, since they aren't exclusively defined by their genetics.

>To put it clearer: not everyone lives up to their full potential, and 25% of 2 (0.5) is obviously less than 75% of 1 (0.75).
right, and we can use genetics to give more people a better head start than just allowing them to spawn with shitty genes

>How do you know, for example, that making the population as a whole have a higher IQ is a good thing?
so you want a population composed entirely of retards...?

>Maybe this will turn people into overintellectual pussies who can't (or won't) stand up for themselves
then incentivize intellect without incentivizing pussy genes. You can be very creative with genes, there's so many options, so many combinations

>or a variety of other potential side effects that we can't anticipate beforehand? It's hubristic.
sure, undoubtedly there will be some trial and error. But that's science, you find what works, discard what doesn't, and continue making good progress. You just don't say "oh, but then there will be a few mistakes along the way, abandon the whole thing" when we have so much to gain as a species by cleansing out the obvious genetic problems first and foremost rather than aesthetics (which would be last)

things like hereditary diseases for one, my god, that is such an itchy bullet positive eugenics is just begging to solve. Imagine if less people are born with crippling genetic diseases because their parents weren't incentivized to reproduce! I think they would thank the geneticists profusely

and I agree wholeheartedly. That doesn't mean that it is all black culture though, there are genetic predispositions that must be addressed towards breeding the more civilized negroe

>Because we're better off now than we were 4000 years ago?

To paraphrase someone you're probably a fan of, "What is better off?" You haven't hinted at having any standards of good in our posts.

>There will always be the pussies, but the base level will be raised, which benefits everyone.

No, this is hubristic again. How do you know that there isn't a correlation between pussification and intelligence, for example? If that was the case, then we'd benefit as a society by having the lower-IQ people around, since they'd keep us safe from invaders

If everyone could choose what their child would look like, there would be a rather large number of blonde haired blue eyed Caucasians .

That fact scares liberals out of their mind.

>Shitty genes, pussy genes.

Some of those gene pools are the best available, you shouldn't underestimate the other races.

itchy button*, haha, what a strange typo

Forreal. The genes who stayed past 19th century survived for specific reasons.

>natural right to reproduce
>natural
>right
Not a thing, old boy.
> Allowing them to do so is not detrimental to people who do not have disorders.
It is, though. Because they have to be supported, or they might pass on their defects to others.
>Likewise, removing them provides no benefit.
Cost is one benefit. General evolution is another.
>nature is actually already pretty good and weeding out genetic disorders
Aye, used to be the case. Now medicine and community welfare has put a stop to that. Where someone with genetic failings can have them masked. Or find someone who will tolerate them, and thus pass them on where they would not have been able to in the past.

Everyone. Even the pussies.

>Downies aren't the same as children born without brains
They contribute just as much to society. Or rather, have the same capacity to do so.
>if you talk to people who work with downies,
One of my friends does. She constantly spouts shite about how "well they're doing" when they shit themselves three times a day instead of four.
>you'll see that they have the full range of human emotions
Well then, we better get some emotion trophies ready.
>But the mere fact that someone is born with a clubfoot or with dimples doesn't mean they are a "genetic failure" and have no worth as human beings, since they aren't exclusively defined by their genetics.
That alone might indicate other failings. But we don't need to set the bar too high. Just high enough to get rid of times where evolution took a wrong turn or a day off.

sure. Feel free to do as you wish with your genes. My concern has only been to incentivize the known better genes over lesser genes, a purer vision of eugenics

none of the violence shit that has tainted a noble goal

I would never want to be a eugenic child in current governmental situation

Imagine how much doping they'll do to that kid
He will never have an original thought in his entire life

You know Genius sparks from Madness

>right, and we can use genetics to give more people a better head start than just allowing them to spawn with shitty genes

No, you're presupposing that we can fully understand how human societies work and that we can manipulate genetics to improve it, which is unbelievably arrogant.

>so you want a population composed entirely of retards...?

No, but we need 50% of the population to be below average IQ and 50% to be above average IQ for society to properly work, since we don't know what happens if it gets intentionally shifted in either direction, and we shouldn't perform such an experiment.

>then incentivize intellect without incentivizing pussy genes. You can be very creative with genes, there's so many options, so many combinations

Again, how do you do this? This is perhaps more arrogant than even your first statement, since you're assuming that not only do we fully understand human societies, but that we can increase the expression of a trait IN ISOLATION to all other traits in the population.

>sure, undoubtedly there will be some trial and error. But that's science, you find what works, discard what doesn't, and continue making good progress. You just don't say "oh, but then there will be a few mistakes along the way, abandon the whole thing" when we have so much to gain as a species by cleansing out the obvious genetic problems first and foremost rather than aesthetics (which would be last)

So would you allow your own children to be the "trial and error" for this, even if they had to be the ones who were "discarded?" Or should only OTHER PEOPLE take that risk?

That sounds like a noble goal indeed.

Wrong. 99+% of people want their kids to look like them. Like ffs people who know my dad/uncle/grandfather can tell that we're related since we all have the same look to us. Having some random blonde-haired blue-eyed German-looking kid would be totally out of place, and he wouldn't be my kid.

Smart people need stupid people so they can rule.

You really shouldn't use that flag at all, since you're obviously a Nietzchean and a philosophical materialist.

>Well then, we better get some emotion trophies ready.

BEEP BOOP WHAT IS THIS HUMAN INTERACTION?

>That alone might indicate other failings. But we don't need to set the bar too high. Just high enough to get rid of times where evolution took a wrong turn or a day off.

Again, who are you to determine where a process that has been going on for millions of years has gone wrong? Presumably you also believe that your mind itself is entirely material in origin, so how do you know that a product of this imperfect process can be trusted to judge this imperfect process?

And when it comes to race?

Who is to say whose genes are best?

There are geniuses from every corner of the world.

If it were left to statistics, should not the whole world be Asian?

>To paraphrase someone you're probably a fan of,
Who?
>"What is better off?"
Not genetically defective. Ie. improved immune systems, absence of hereditary failings, increased potential, etc.
>How do you know that there isn't a correlation between pussification and intelligence, for example?
You'd have to demonstrate it first. The advent of farming didn't render people hapless babes. Nor did any increase in the quality of diet, or schooling. You won't find too many stupid generals, and you can bet they weren't pussies.
>invaders
Quite a narrow view, you have.

>which is unbelievably arrogant.
Progress only comes from arrogance.
>No, but we need 50% of the population to be below average IQ and 50% to be above average IQ for society to properly work
That will always be the case, though. Again, it's just the baseline which will be raised. Or do you weep every night that we don't still have Cro-Magnons around to take the burden of low intelligence potential?
>since you're assuming that not only do we fully understand human societies
People aren't that complex, dude. You're assuming we don't have an advertising industry, among many others.
>So would you allow your own children to be the "trial and error"
Yes. I wouldn't want to punish them with inferiority if it could be avoided. You'd be mighty cruel, and a terrible parent to say otherwise.

Define "better genes"

why not castrated?

>these fucking anti-eugenics shills
God, Sup Forums's being overrun.
Eugenics is one of the most effective ways to improve humanity "naturally" and both leftists and cuckservatives hate it because >muh Hitler, fuck off you retards

>You really shouldn't use that flag at all
Because i don't submit to your particular views?
>BEEP BOOP WHAT IS THIS HUMAN INTERACTION?
Good job. You certainly expressed the value of drooling retards having emotion. Sounds like you deserve one of those trophies.
>who are you to determine where a process that has been going on for millions of years has gone wrong?
Someone who can see failings? Which, i bet you can too, but you're too afraid to admit it.
> so how do you know that a product of this imperfect process can be trusted to judge this imperfect process?
Why wouldn't it? We can still mathematically determine shit, despite an imperfect product. Numbers are universal.

That's one type of eugenics. We don't have to go the most hardline system to achieve results.

>A well informed argument that shows basic understanding of genetics.
>racemixing is bad
This is the most articulated inbred I have ever met.

>Who?

Pontius Pilate, asking Jesus "What is Truth?" You know, the kind of thing you'd know if you were actually a Christian. The point is that you, like Pilate, obviously don't believe in any kind of objective truth, so you are in no position to decide that society today is better than it was 4000 years ago (assuming that you can even make an accurate comparison between the two times periods)

>Not genetically defective. Ie. improved immune systems, absence of hereditary failings, increased potential, etc.

Again, how do you perform this and by what standards do you determine this?

>You'd have to demonstrate it first. The advent of farming didn't render people hapless babes. Nor did any increase in the quality of diet, or schooling. You won't find too many stupid generals, and you can bet they weren't pussies.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding my point. I wasn't claiming that there was a correlation between pussificaiton and intelligence at all, just that there might potentially be such a correlation and an increase in pussification could potentially be a side effect of a eugenic policy, since we don't really understand genetics or human society at all.

Its fine if it works. Natural selection always wins in the end though, so if you dont do it properly, you will fail.

you realize that natural selection is inherently eugenic right? It favors better genes over poorer genes as suited to its environment. Eugenics is just the artificial acceleration of this process, that child is as "natural" as any other, only merely genetically guided with the best possible traits available afforded by modern science

If anything, he would be the envy of everyone. And he may even be a modest sort of lad if such were genetically predispositioned so

>Progress only comes from arrogance.

So does catastrophic failure.

>That will always be the case, though. Again, it's just the baseline which will be raised. Or do you weep every night that we don't still have Cro-Magnons around to take the burden of low intelligence potential?

Strawman. I mean the current IQ distribution as it exists in society right now, not some hypothetical situation.

>People aren't that complex, dude. You're assuming we don't have an advertising industry, among many others.

People know how to sell particular objects to other people, but that doesn't at all translate to understanding how a human society works and how it changes and so on. It's a very superficial claim.

>Yes. I wouldn't want to punish them with inferiority if it could be avoided. You'd be mighty cruel, and a terrible parent to say otherwise.

You say this, but I don't think you would practice it

>No, you're presupposing that we can fully understand how human societies work and that we can manipulate genetics to improve it
I have never said we can or have fully understood human societies. I am only saying what we know is that some traits are more desirable than others in the modern world, and thus we should seek to propagate such genes rather than the genetic nihilism you offer

You treat as if each gene was equal. They are not. Some are absolutely malicious, and are right to be eradicated. Peacefully, of course, I wish no harm onto anyone and I cannot stress this enough.

>which is unbelievably arrogant.
This isn't arrogance, just practicality on a species level.

>No, but we need 50% of the population to be below average IQ and 50% to be above average IQ for society to properly work
and how do you know we NEED such a seemingly inefficient balance? Perhaps there is much to gain from genetically weeding out the poorer genes, equally as valid

>since we don't know what happens if it gets intentionally shifted in either direction
I'm not saying I can predict the future either, I am suggesting we work with what we know. Why you are so against eliminating susceptibility to heart congestion and heart attacks, brain diseases, likelihood to seizures, all sorts of known genetically-linked horrors to an extent?

>and we shouldn't perform such an experiment.
>we shouldn't do science
never leaving the stone age with that attitude

Jews

>Just because you're not Catholic doesn't mean you can dismiss the line of reasoning because you don't like it.
>If you began to exist as a form in the mind of God...
Your line of reasoning is based on a fictional character, thats why is dismissed.

If I can speak on his behalf, in a Darwinist sense, 'better genes' are genes that are better suited to producing offspring.

Therefore, obviously bad genes are:

Genes that lead to sperm infertility
Genes that result in erectile dysfunction
Genes that don't promote a will to live

Other than these simple universal traits, other genes like strength, for example, may not necessarily be 'better' if they require more calories to support than that which they can earn.

This is why, for example, that the sloth is so very slow - faster sloths ran out of energy, even though they were most likely able to eat more food.

For a civilisation, then, 'good' genes would be that which can breed more. Unfortunately, they are, due to the welfare state, also the genes which don't facilitate employment. These would include genes that badly influence:

Intelligence,
Willpower,
Foresight,
Determination,
Discipline (esp regarding pleasure delaying),
etc.

So, in our current system, although in a darwinist sense, these genes are 'better', they are ultimately not better for the civilisation, and we would expect this civilisation to eventually crumble under the weight of its parasites.

>trusting modern science to be ethical and righteous without any drawbacks whatsoever

Can you explain how you have such trust in a system?

Racemixing isn't per se bad for genetic reasons, it's bad more for reasons of culture, Taleb-style skin in the game (having a certain set of shared ancestors that unite you with the rest of your ethnic community in your country), and appearance (people are very visual, so producing children that are visually different from everyone else obviously sets them apart from everyone else)

Only people who are genelets and know they deserve to be culled hate eugenics.

The arrogance of the intellect

So, just to be perfectly clear, no more endogamy?

>Again, how do you do this? This is perhaps more arrogant than even your first statement, since you're assuming that not only do we fully understand human societies, but that we can increase the expression of a trait IN ISOLATION to all other traits in the population.
stop putting words in my mouth. I am not saying we're omnipotent, I am again and have always said: we work with what we know.

Some genes are better than others, we cannot treat them all equally

>So would you allow your own children to be the "trial and error" for this, even if they had to be the ones who were "discarded?" Or should only OTHER PEOPLE take that risk?
you forgot the part where I said very explicitly that this would all be non-violent and voluntary. Parents interested in such a program would be welcome, you are free not to participate. As for my own children, it would depend on much more information such as success rates etc. etc. If something was already proven a success, why not? I'd love to be first on the forefront if my wife consented

>Having some random blonde-haired blue-eyed German-looking kid would be totally out of place, and he wouldn't be my kid.
ok, that's you and you are free to make that decision. Others may choose differently and that's their choice

>And when it comes to race?
are you trying to tell me the genes of an aboriginal are equal to that of a European?

>Who is to say whose genes are best?
gee, I wonder what gene pool constructed the west

>There are geniuses from every corner of the world.
some more than others

>If it were left to statistics, should not the whole world be Asian?
are you referring to a strict IQ measurement? I assure you, the potential of eugenics goes beyond IQ

For whatever reason, the general public feels that human birth is always necessary, inevitable, unplanned, and a right. That same group of people also tend to lack basic logical thinking ability. What a disastrously happy coincidence!

Of all the rights people should lose, it should be reproduction. A society as a whole should be allowed to decide which members thereof may be permitted to procreate, and when. Let's not take this too far and start mutilating genitals; abortion and euthanasia are together more than sufficient deterrent for a Malthusian catastrophe.

>ethical and righteous without any drawbacks whatsoever
never said that. I only have trust in it in the sense that I think being very careful and taking plenty of precautionary measures are critical

But that doesn't mean it can't be done

>You know, the kind of thing you'd know if you were actually a Christian
Dude, you paraphrased a very common line. Don't pretend that it was such a trifle.
>The point is that you, like Pilate, obviously don't believe in any kind of objective truth
Nope. Truth is truth. The only thing which changes is the circumstance.
>so you are in no position to decide that society today is better than it was 4000 years ago
Yea? Why not? We have greater standards of health, education, and potential than we did 4000 years ago.
>how do you perform this and by what standards do you determine this?
Medical examination. Duh.
> just that there might potentially be such a correlation
And there might be a correlation with people spontaneously bursting into flames, since you claim we don't understand genetics.
>since we don't really understand genetics or human society at all.
But that's wrong on both counts?

>So does catastrophic failure.
So you propose never doing anything ever? Perhaps even never leaving our beds, lest there be some kind of failure and sads?
> I mean the current IQ distribution as it exists in society right now
Read what you wrote. 50% of people will always be below average.
>People know how to sell particular objects to other people, but that doesn't at all translate to understanding how a human society works and how it changes and so on.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand advertising at all. Or traffic patterns. Or consumption patterns.
>You say this, but I don't think you would practice it
Because you don't want to believe that you're the only hypocritical coward.
Some people have integrity, champ.

Because for the past 150+ years, we've been fed a stream of lies about equality.

>I have never said we can or have fully understood human societies. I am only saying what we know is that some traits are more desirable than others in the modern world, and thus we should seek to propagate such genes rather than the genetic nihilism you offer

But how do you know that the modern world will stay the same way forever, and that "undesirable traits" will never become useful again? I also object to the term "genetic nihilism," since what I support isn't nihilism, it's just allowing people to freely choose who they marry and reproduce with, even if one of them carries a recessive genetic disorder

>and how do you know we NEED such a seemingly inefficient balance? Perhaps there is much to gain from genetically weeding out the poorer genes, equally as valid

You're the one proposing the change in this case, so I'd have to turn the question around and ask how you know that we don't? We simply don't know well enough either way, so we shouldn't mess with it.

>I'm not saying I can predict the future either, I am suggesting we work with what we know. Why you are so against eliminating susceptibility to heart congestion and heart attacks, brain diseases, likelihood to seizures, all sorts of known genetically-linked horrors to an extent?

Because we don't know about genetics enough to know that eliminating those things will have no negative effect

>never leaving the stone age with that attitude

You shouldn't equate radical societal-level social engineering with scientific experimentation.

Exactly, is cultural, is malleable. You just have to stop fucking with your cousins and make racemixing a custom and voila! no more "muh heritage" bullshit. The very definition of "good appearance" would be transformed in a few generations. Racism and segregation
inevitably lead to endogamy and a smaller pool gene, so I like to think that racemixing is as necesary as it is inevitable.

Because it would make the world a better place.

He publicly identified as a Christian, so I assumed a Christian line of argument was good. This thread isn't about religion, so I will not go into that further, but God is not "a character," that's a very primitive understanding of God

As long as humans want to rule over other humans then said eugenics can never be done

Our entire current economic system is based on consumerist culture for making rash impulse buys to stay in constant debt

Oh but suddenly if eugenics is implemented these new humans will be all the brightest and smartest and will lead us towards the space age right?

You're delusional

ok, ok, a human construct then.

yo, dude, don't show off all that gray matter in public. The masses will amass a torch-and-pitchfork mob if they begin suspecting the magnitude of your intellect defies their comprehension.

> pic semi-related

Because it probably wouldn't include you.