How would a eugenics program be realistically implemented?

How would a eugenics program be realistically implemented?

Other urls found in this thread:

eugenics.net/
counter-currents.com/2014/07/against-good-breeding/
youtube.com/watch?v=PZ1YVM_H_dk
timesofisrael.com/how-jewish-activism-has-wiped-out-tay-sachs/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The freeeeee market!

people will do it themselves once the technology becomes available.

with crispr why bother anymore

By turning to Communism.

Soft Eugenics:

Cut benefits for poor people, programs to encourage smart young people to have kids early with financial support, selective schooling (separates people out by IQ and to an extent class, makes them more likely to marry)

Hard Eugenics

Sterilise criminals, people with disorders etc

First could happen, second would only happen in a fairly dystopian society

>Put gun to head.
>Pull trigger.

There you go. Realistic implementation.

war is the purest and easiest redpilling device known to mankind. degeneracy is naturally vanquished by societies in brutal wars dealing with massive losses of life. Women become better mates to compensate for unequally skewed gender ratios.
War kills all good men and leaves society with a bunch of cucks and single moms which leads to the destruction of civilization
War should include the complete and literal rape of the defeated by the victor, for various reasons:
1. It allows war to work as eugenics;
2. Reduces the likelyhood of immediate ulterior conflict;
3. Fair punishment;
4. Makes men fight even more seriously because they know what the results will be.

I'm starting to think that war was a part of being a man and it's an urge we've rightfully had for thousands of years; suddenly taken away in these modern times. And now all men do is vicariously have war through sports and videogames, basically hooked into a virtual reality because their very nature has been eradicated
The modern world is basically a construct to sideline masculinity and its insurrectionary nature.

But I feel men are getting tired of being treated like eunuchs.

We lost natural selection, so just reintroduce a culling force. Just sterilize or exile the lowest denominator. IQ below 80? Genetic disease? Mental/physical defect? Unable to jog a mile/do basic standard exercise test by graduation (excluding legitimate injury)? Cull them. Every few decades increase the standards. The gene pool will clean itself.

by getting blacks to smoke newports

You'd have an easier time implementing communism.

WE GON' BLEACH THE ENTIRE WORLD WITHOUT EVEN TRYING CUZ OF CRISPR NIGGA

JUST SIT BACK AND RELAX MUH FUCKA, THE WHITE RACE WILL SAVE ITSELF.

By mapping economic public data (zip codes) to children, and sterilizing them through injections disguised as """""""vaccines"""""""

No one would ever think to do that though, it's complicated and evil and stuff :^)

This.

Quality post 10/10, would agree again

Unironically this

Sterilization via water supply.

Eugenics is unbiblical.

The same way it has been implemented the last years. Give women jobs, mobiles, birth control and feminism.

Depends on what we deem is ethical, or if we're willing to break ethical behavior for the greater good.

First start with the most basic, which is positive eugenics. Instead of preventing people from having kids (negative eugenics), incentive healthy couples to have more kids. This will raise the overall quality significantly by itself. To determine this system, a doctor would confirm that someone is eligible for entry into the program if they meet a predefined definition of 'healthy'. From there, they would have have their mental capacity measured to ensure increased mental function. At this point they are certified and will receive residual benefits for having more children and raising them properly in the nuclear family.

Or, wait until genetic engineering is reliable enough to make superhumans, perfect in ways nature couldn't even imagine. I doubt we'll see significant process here with the amount of anti-science and anti-progress in the west.

Mass genetic engineering.

Better to make it that benefits get cut if people on welfare have kids

Justify it by having the amount welfare is cut by go towards paying for the kids school (where they are feed). That way kids don't suffer

This may sound pointless but I guarantee selfish welfare recipients won't want to have less money to spend on themselves

pls mind that war can also get rid of your most capable People

sure, capable and talented ones who survive battle will be strenghened even more, but is not that simple

Remove all foreigners, sterilizes degenerates and unhealthy
t. shitskin after White/Japanese technology

Look up the Hajnal Line and Manorial Feudalism to see what practical eugenics looks like.

I look almost like her and my boyfriend is a chemist quadroon with European face with dat dark skin and curly hair. We don't want fucking shitskins and Jews running around here, but no idea what a real nationalist state would do to us. Maybe I should get a fully European boy just to be sure

>nature environment worship
What did he mean by this?

By popularizing the notion that a defective baby in the embryo is basically a burden to society as well as to itself. Thereby making it easier for society to accept the fact that abortion of such an abomination is not an immoral thing but rather a service to humanity as a whole. Or if we want to be really subtle about this then we could develop vaccines that completely barren the seeds of life in people with specified defects.

You can succeed in the free market by swindling and without having a high IQ

IQ is the best known predictor of live success. IQ itself is not yet understand very well tho and we have not much of a clue how hereditary IQ is for example. Eugenics was never about IQ itself.

Then if you think about it if you judge 'well being' by nowadays standards, having financial system we have better IQ will mean you will do better in the markets of course.

Mass murder of Sup Forumstards' IPs would be a great start.

Not that you were going to breed anyway, but...

Won't do much good if we still are cucked.

pharmagarchy already has one in place

Anti-Natalist propaganda
Demonise the gene being targeted
Subsidise all other genes to starve the gene out

Basically IDS HABBENING to Whites right now.

>Eugenics
>None of Sup Forums allowed to breed
Just KEK my shit up

Firstly, by removing you from the gene pool...

This. Volunteers get classified based on their physical and mental capabilities and when two of those eligible have a baby they get X amount of money per month. Simple as shit and it could easily be done by a private party as soon as they have the funding together. Because lets be honest here, no western government is willing to start classifying people as "Class A" genetic material and even less willing to start sterilizing even people with serious genetic defects

gene research and mandatory manipulation

It already has.

basketball contest.

>being a criminal is genetic

What are you, a retard?

The question was eugenics, not disgenics

pay people to get sterilized, overnight you have all the stupidest (brownest) people in society never having kids without having to break the NAP

Here in japan a japanese ikemen is far above a gaijin ikemen.

So if crispr happened, most people would choose all japanese genes.

Assuming you're paying that with tax money, the NAP is being broken.

oops meant

>But I feel men are getting tired of being treated like eunuchs
Yes, but even I am convinced there is NOTHING that can be done about that except for a civilizational apocalypse. Nobody wants to change anything, barely anybody even wants to talk about it.

>implying taxpayers would be stupid enough to object funding their essential future tax cuts

Genghis i am dissapoint

>wtf tall, healthy, smart and without a single allergie
i'm basically what eugenics will be able to accomplish within the next 100 years.

feelsgoodman

I wasn't arguing that, you dolt. Just pointed out a lapse in his reasoning.

bullets and gas

>taxpayers wouldn't object funding the sterilization of subhumans
>doesn't matter, the NAP would have been violated all the same

user, i...

sure, abdul

by removing welfare

W-what about people with autism and depression?

I'd be interested to see this happen.

But be prepared for lots of people to want to produce black men with huge dark dicks.

Someone being involved in the act of paying was a premise in his argument, and I accepted that premise, for my correction didn't concern the premise, but the way he understood the concept of NAP. You're challenging me on a point I wasn't making.

Tie welfare use to sterilization, offer criminals shorter sentences on exchange for sterilization, pay high IQ people (selected based either on national test score or educational achievements) so that children become essentially free to them.

No kids if you take more in taxes than you give. It's really really easy desu. Should be the same for voting if you HAVE to have a democracy

*claps
exactly, why should we subsidise subhumans to breed.

I think anyone with an IQ under 100 should be sterilised

Is the fundamental principal of the NAP that all parties consent? Yes or no?

If yes, the subhumans voluntarily get the sterilization and the tax payers would not object because it would mean massive future tax cuts.

If no, explain how NAP would be violated

Just because you did not make that point doesn't mean that your premise was right

I would add state-funded vasectomies.

The idea would be that if you accept the vasectomy, and have had no children, then you will be granted a house for 10 years and a small sum of money.

Maybe less if the economy isn't going as strong.

Either way, promoting consensual offing of people out of the gene pool who don't have auspicious genes will be beneficial in the long run.

Pretty simple.

Genetically modify halal meats to cause cancers, put the "cure" in regular bacon, this way a few non radical muslims will survive and provide enough cover to eradicate 1.5 billion muslims.

Arranged marriages of high-IQ people.

Remove all welfare. Wow, it sure is difficult to form a working society!

This. I still only want Crispr used for white people though.

Literally Google US Eugenics program
Fuckin retard

It wasn't my premise, it was his.

If you force people who don't want to pay for it to pay for it, then it is violating the NAP. If all of the paying happening is voluntary, then it isn't violating the NAP.

The same way the (((government))) implements everything. By jewish tricks or by force.

What i introduced to this exchange was this: if asked, the tax payers would consent to the gov't using their tax money to sterilize subhumans that go willingly to get sterilized, thus no party would be violating the NAP

For everyone who thinks eugenics means either dysgenics or genocide please see the following. Eugenics simply means "good breeding". Yes, (((they))) are responsible for conflating those terms.

eugenics.net/
counter-currents.com/2014/07/against-good-breeding/
youtube.com/watch?v=PZ1YVM_H_dk

Basically the opposite of what is done now as eugenics is already being used but to create a negative direction of travel, rather than positive.
Everyone pays their own child related expenses which you can offset against tax. All pregnancy, schooling, housing, healthcare related to childcare are payable by the parent directly. The most responsible people would plan for this early. Responsible people who plan on average will make better parents.
I don't care how many kids anyone has. You shouldn't expect anyone else to pay for them though.
Societies future is biological.
If you are smarter than average or are exceptional in some way you are likely to earn more. If you earn more you should aim to have a larger family.
Currently the larger families tend to be either very poor or very rich as this is where the incentives are. This over time will completely change the shape of the bell curve and result in a genetic bifurcation. A healthy society should get better and better each generation, not worse and worse.
Eugenics is an absolute no no for Normie's though. Responsible parenting policy is much more socially acceptable way of phrasing it.

Just like it was actually implemented before. Eugenics was a common policy in Germany, USA and even Sweden.

A vague concept like "taxpayer" isn't something most libertarians would concede to you. It sounds like you're implying that NAP isn't violated if most taxpayers voted for such policy. In no instance would ALL taxpayers consent, and according to NAP, you can't expropriate funds from non-consenting citizens.

>In no instance would ALL taxpayers consent

Prove it

Didn't India or some other 3rd world country start state-funded vasectomies and fail to determine whether the males who had vasectomies were fertile in the first place?

The actual idea was abused for the benefit of those who didn't deserve it.

It's extremely unrealistic, and I'm sure you know it. Taxation happens via coercion for a reason.

hippies.

>have the military escort all staff from every prison
>turn off water
>come back in 2 weeks

in the USA this would work wonders for the gene pool.

Further, the Wikipedia entry for "Tax" highlights why taxation is usually seen as violating the NAP.

A tax (from the Latin taxo) is a MANDATORY financial charge or some other type of levy IMPOSED upon a taxpayer (an individual or other legal entity) by a governmental organization in order to fund various public expenditures.[1] [emphasis added by me]

>It's extremely unrealistic, and I'm sure you know it. Taxation happens via coercion for a reason.

Still, in a state of libertarians that would worry over taxation, if they were given a choice to vote for legislation where all concerned parties would willingly give funding because it would further decrease taxation to the future, no-one would vote against it and you should know this as well

The jews are already doing it in their own circles.

>timesofisrael.com/how-jewish-activism-has-wiped-out-tay-sachs/

Assumptions you make are utopian (or dystopian). No, it's reasonable to assume there to be libertarians who would see that as unchristian, believe in genetic environmentalism, just want to use their money for something else, etc. Is it the internet making you edgy, as when you actually go to the outside world, there's only a tiny fraction of people who accept this kind of subhuman-non-subhuman dichotomy you seem to take for granted.

Look to history, because we used to have eugenics in the US. The mentally retarded were sterilized, as often were the insane and sometimes the deformed or criminal. This happened in the tail bit of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century in America, as part of the Progressive Era, much like immigration restrictions. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization - but for an added bonus, eugenics programs also progressively targeted blacks and Indians. Because leftism.

Consider female voters, especially!

>because it would further decrease taxation to the future
If we're considering a "state of libertarians," there wouldn't be taxation like this in the first place.

True to a degree but war also causes the loss of the best genes. Many great warriors fall. And sometimes inferior warriors survive by fate/chance. Just imagine how many excellent genetically strong men died in WW2. Your point that war leaves cucks and betas in it's wake is one of your strongest.

Swindling can only get you so far before people notice and your reputation is ruined.

Put all NEETs weeaboos furries bronies omega males sodomites and other sexual deviants in work camps

by killing off all non-whites

This might not be an argument worth having. Usually libertarians just insist that no skullduggery or effective group strategies could take place in a truly free market, à la Milton Friedman, which to me strikes as as idealistic as people who say quadrennial voting and an active citizenry keep politicians in check.

cyanide

We start with you.

Flood the internet with porn and mlp trash so that genetic failures will remain in their mother's basement being angry at life because they won't reproduce.

We had "hard eugenics" until the 70s.
Good times

>No, it's reasonable to assume there to be libertarians who would see that as unchristian, believe in genetic environmentalism, just want to use
What is also reasonable to believe, is that if all concerned parties agree, libertarians by definition do not give a fuck. You are now projecting a moral undertone that true libertarians -by definition- simply do not have. Remember the "what if the 10 y.o. consents though?" meme that while is exaggerated, its core principals are true to libertarians. For any true libertarian if no-one is coerced, no fucks are given. Another point, libertarians are always for tax cuts, that would make even more sense in the first place.

> Is it the internet making you edgy, as when you actually go to the outside world, there's only a tiny fraction of people who accept this kind of subhuman-non-subhuman dichotomy you seem to take for granted.

False. And it's absolutely easy to prove that every single white person subconsciously believes that differs from subhumans: you can shame white people for being racist. Virtually no-other race can be shamed for racism. You can accuse them for foul play, but deep inside them they won't comprehend the shame that a white person would have, because of the (heavily distorted) christian morality projection makes them feel bad about being better. You cannot be shamed if you obviously don't feel that you are better, you cannot shame a person that feels equal to another person. Therefore, it only takes normalization for the human-subhuman dichotomy to be accepted in mainstream discussion.

>If we're considering a "state of libertarians," there wouldn't be taxation like this in the first place.

A state cannot exist without taxes though, mate. The only place that there are no state and no taxes is Somalia, and i imagine that if we are talking about Somalia there simply isn't any reason to continue this discussion as it is comprised entirely of subhumans.

1:
Society must be made hard and competetive again. Removal of most welfare, removal of "anti-discrimination" laws (to allow groups to compete). A complete paradigm shift in how Government and to a lesser extent business is run. More oppertunities for people to fail and succed, positions in Government should be very competitive but also highly compensated. If you really want maximum selection pressure society would essentially look like a sci-fi distopia ala Warhammer 40k.
2:
Gattaca style eugenics. Take the "best" DNA of both parents to make thier children. Available to all citizens free of charge. Optional. Soft genetic discrimination allowed, but mostly merit based advancement. This will be feasible sooner than full on genetic engineering allowing societies with the stones to do this to get a leg up on others.

Allow me to inseminate every 7/10 and better looking white woman with my superior genetics while simultaneously sterilizing and/or killing all non-whites.

Just sterilize the bottom 10% of the IQ scores every 50 years.

Oh and keep the non-Whites out of White countries.

Are you? Do some research. Behavior is genetic. How the fuck do you think we have breeds of dog which instinctively point at birds and others which herd sheep?