Why are so many people against eugenics?

Why are so many people against eugenics?

Other urls found in this thread:

bla.st/l8r3f
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Would you be fine with getting killed because you are dumb? Would you be fine if your family got killed because they are dumb? If no then that's a reason for being against eugenics

Because some people truly prefer having the option of choosing a defective retard to produce offspring with.

>killed because you are dumb?
>family got killed because they are dumb?
No, but we shouldn't be able to reproduce, that is the problem with the current society, dumb people have 5 and more kids while smart people have with luck one because they are too concerned that they will not raise the kid well/not enough money to send it to an Ivy league.

Economy requires uneducated people to do jobs that educated people think are below them. Take out all the "dumb" people by not letting them reproduce or capping reproduction will devastate the economy.

Genes do not fully determine the capacity of individuals. A scientific eugenics program which accounts for influence of nurture is in principle impossible to implement.

but with eugenics if the dumb couldn't breed and the rich ivy league stock were encouraged and incentivized to breed more there wouldn't be enough ivy leagues to educate them all and many would turn out dumb and have dumb kids which then wouldn't be allowed to breed and thus resulting in an even richer tier of people who have the money to get their kids in placement ahead of the other rich kids vying for their spots and then you're basically back to square one anyway.. but with better looking people who generally do better in the shit schools they end up attending and then raising the overall quality of life everywhere resulting in a veritable utopia of nigger free perfection

Like you said, even with eugenics there will still inevitably be class differences, economically socially physically mentally whatever. Then they will think why not get rid of the dumb people? And so on forever.

>thinking intelligence is genetic

My sides are in orbit.

>glorified inbreeding

non-voluntary implementations.

I like transhumanism, which seems to be a kind of 'eugenics without the ethics nightmares', but classical eugenics wants too much control over individual behavior and agency.

It's better to give people the tools to improve themselves than to force people you don't like to stop breeding.

>the needs of the few...

People think eugenics means killing inferior people.
Since inhibitors are a thing, you don´t need to do so anymore.

yes, however, the overall well being of all classes, from top to bottom, is expected to gradually improve... i.e. instead of shit tier to best being a scale of 0-100 it becomes a scale of 20-120... as the lowest continues to climb you wind up with fewer shitlords and criminals and then the higher tier people are less likely to have a problem with them and want them gone. the program stops when crime stops and everyone is contributing and that keeps the lowest tier from getting too smart and competitive with the upper tier.

I'd get wiped out

Why's giving people a chance to improve better? It's better to be be born better instead of wasting time getting there

You wouldn´t get killed, you would just not reproduce.

I'd have to live with the shame of being declared unfit to reproduce. I'd be marked. People would use it as a reason to shut on me. I'd kill myself. I don't even want to reproduce, I'd just be so insulted.

The hedonistic treadmill says otherwise. Just like if you upgraded your TV you'll enjoy it for a while before your pleasure levels fall back to the exact same as when you had your previous TV. Furthermore, even if you reject this, your picture would only apply to the generation where the first eugenics program was implemented, because they would know the difference between 0-100 and 20-120. Any further generations would not perceive this difference, because they did not live in a time where it was 0-100. Therefore they would gain nothing from the previous eugenics attempt and would want to implement eugenics again.

1: Eugenics relies on the idea that the power of controlling who gives birth will be rested in the hands of a responsible leadership, human beings are not infallible and will screw this up immensely

2: Genes for intelligence do not often breed true, a lot of the geniuses of the past were born to poor, dumb parents with no traits that would indicate intelligent offspring (gregor mendel himself was born in abject poverty as an uneducated monk)

If you do shit like in your picture, you are already seen as a retard and unworthy to reproduce.
I bet you already get insulted for shit like that.

Hitler... It's always Hitler

No I'm seen as a guy who loves cock. Are you saying that all the gays are going to be wiped out?

No need to interfere, gays don´t reproduce anyway.

It partially is. While it's not nowhere near guaranteed that two people will high intelligence will produce the offspring with this trait, it certainly increases the chance of this happening by around 20-30%, maybe more if their lineage had the same traits... But the definition of intelligence beyond its core meaning is kind of fuzzy since there are different types of intelligence, so someone could seem average or dumb in most situations but show great skills in a specific work environment.

I know but I want to be seen as someone who could and should reproduce.

>what is nature vs nurture?

>20-30%
>numbers I pulled out of my ass

another problem with the idea of eugenics is that people don't understand genetics, if homosexuality is even genetic it's obviously a trait that increased the suitability in the species in some way, potentially a gene that, when dominant in women for example, could give some sort of resistance to disease or an decreased likelihood of miscarriage

But why if you won´t reproduce anyway?
Faggots don´t reproduce anyway, eugenics wouldn´t change anything.

Because it selects more for racial, ethnic, or other arbitrary characteristics and not blindly based on actual health and heredity.

>Faggots don´t reproduce anyway, eugenics wouldn´t change anything.
did you not read what I just posted? the gene for homosexuality can exist in men as a recessive gene or women as a dominant gene that doesn't effect them in the same way it would effect males, meaning it would be passed on through normal, heterosexual people.

You'd be free to fuck all the other dumb fucks that were stopped from breeding. You have your own coachfucka. Only nobody can get pregnant and everybody has low self esteem.

Sounds fucking perfect.

What is your point?
Eugenics wouldn´t change anything for homosexuals.

Yust because you are different, doesn´t mean you are better.

like, maybe in a genetic sense it wouldn't change the outcome of their homosexual relationships (barring forced steralizations like what happened to alan turing) but the obvious implications for people who are bisexual would involve forced abortions at the very least.

Most people have a misunderstanding of eugenics, also full scale eugenics means no future generations of retards to do all the shitty jobs.

better than any dating site! a lot of horny as fuck sluts of your city on bla.st/l8r3f

not killed, just not allowed to procreate

>forced steralizations like what happened to alan turing
more like vasectomy
>bisexuals
I didn´t specify the criteria, but as long as they don´t have other problems they should be fine.

"Vasectomy is a surgical procedure for male sterilization or permanent contraception."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy
so, sterilization

>I didn´t specify the criteria, but as long as they don´t have other problems they should be fine.
homosexuality obviously isn't a problem