What's wrong with eugenics, exactly...

What's wrong with eugenics, exactly? It would bring true equality into the world by dividing genetic capital equally instead of reserving it just for the elites. Hitler intended to do that, but the globalist elites wouldn't have it.

Stand still and let me measure your skull, mongol

I see nothing wrong with other people if they want to do it. I prefer natural birth with a partner of my choosing but to each his own.

>What's wrong with eugenics, exactly?
the high probability of failures like Hitler deciding who gets to survive (see also: why gommunism ruins nations)

>hitler
>a failure
mate he controlled a nation at the age of 30. I'm not even a Sup Forumstard or a stormfaggot but he was hardly a failure was he

Controlling a nation isn't an achievement if you start a war that gets it leveled.

>Literally talked about as a pop culture icon almost a century later
>Failure

He was 100% failure as far as his leadership of Germany is concerned.

Why don’t you ask the 8th army how successful he was?

Great

Let’s cut off YOUR balls first

Alex the Gr8 controlled an empire at 20, and his reign didn't end in sudoku after witnessing the mass rape of his subjects

The masses would revolt against it.

Failure in terms of the losing the war yes but being one of the most famous people in history many years later is kind of a big thing.

To be fair wouldn't he just get tortured if captured? Seems kind of no benefit to staying alive if the war is clearly lost.

Germany lost the war but he as an individual seized control of a country with a population of 80 million people.

You think this would be a good thing at first but eventually the average person will be killed off because they will keep pursing something better to create "superhumans". Everyone in this site would probably be seen as a genetic failure and would be the first to suffer genetic cleansing. Also, the elites will benefit the most from eugenics and give them more power to keep their successful lineage alive

Because there is no specifiic criterion of science as to follow for "improving races". Even if you try to make people of certain phenotypes breed it can carry on unknown genetic weaknesses or genes that are simply not optimal for reproduction

test

Putin would've been considered genetic failure thanks to his height.

Not equal access. Of course this isn't an issue in most developed first world nations.

People think we don't do "eugenics" but we still practice stuff like abortions in general (not exactly eugenics but making sure a kid isn't born being a burden onto others and living an unideal life), abortions of kids with defects, scans of the state of fertilized eggs. If you are an older woman and don't use these services to grantee a healthy child that is all on you but women of all strata SHOULD KNOW that we have services to help them out.

Also we heavily discriminate on the partners our relatives pick so it's not like we are innocent really (my dad's issues with mum's parents).

More like we stopped basing it off the vague requirements of the yesteryears and more based upon the desires of the bearing parents and societal awareness.

>trusting barbaric creatures like humans with something as intricate as genetic design
Wildly retarded idea

>He was a failure as a leader
>Yeah but he became famous so he's a winner
Braindead or bait?

>What's wrong with eugenics, exactly?
Nothing inherently
It depends on the implementation and to what extremes it goes, ideally not in the spastic "Kill all non-perfect beings" direction