Have we had a Eugenics thread?
I have a few questions about it
>have we as humans stopped evolving since survival of the fittest doesn't affect us as much if at all?
>are eugenics a viable option for keeping a strong human kind?
>what traits would we even look for if we went through with it?
Please keep the /pol/ to a minimum
Other urls found in this thread:
npr.org
twitter.com
Athleticism like they do for race horses and Olympic villages
>have we as humans stopped evolving since survival of the fittest doesn't affect us as much if at all?
No. Technology rules human development now and it's no longer about who's 'stronger' or 'faster', physically.
>are eugenics a viable option for keeping a strong human kind?
Yes. We get rid of undesirable traits such as diseases and defects and we can strive for maximum bodily development such as tallness, resistence towards sickness, and a healthy mind that isn't subjected to autism, for example.
>what traits eould we even look for if we went through it?
Some that I mentioned before like taller people. Preventing people with crippling diseases from breeding will also work out since it will ensure no space being taken up by people who aren't efficient. I'm not talking about arbitary shit like blonde hair, blue eyes either.
I think repeat violent offenders should be sterilized
It's like another Shoah
>have we as humans stopped evolving since survival of the fittest doesn't affect us as much if at all?
No, of course we haven't stopped evolving. Jeez, are you retarded or something? Nature always selects for something. The fastest changing genes in the past few thousand years have been olfactory receptors, presumably because humans apparently choose mates largely based on odor.
problem is humans are too easily corruptible to have this kind of authority over each other, they are barely able to use the authority they have over themselves, most of the edgelords in Veeky Forums prove that
>have we as humans stopped evolving since survival of the fittest doesn't affect us as much if at all?
No. Any genetic trait that correlates with having more children is by definition "fitter" and is being evolved towards. "Fittest" does not mean "better" in any other sense than that. It certainly does not mean stronger faster smarter whatever (and never has, in fact).
>are eugenics a viable option for keeping a strong human kind?
Honestly, not really. Too difficult to implement. People aren't going to willingly not have children because someone decrees them inferior. Would you? And even if you could get everyone to agree, there are a lot of things that can go wrong with selective breeding.
And finally, we are at the dawn of the age of genetic engineering. By the time eugenics policies would have any real effect, we'll have the ability to improve ourselves much more efficiently anyway.
>>what traits would we even look for if we went through with it?
I guess I would eliminate things that are considered defects. After that, I guess try to make people smarter.
Eugenics is now aptly being called genetic engineering and invloves stuff like the human genome project that could have been used to develop Ethnic bioweapons. Just looking at the Zika virus that spread from nowhere and now apparently is being cured by Genetically Modified mosquitoes. Now more and more produce in the supermarket is GMO food. Hitler would have not even dreamed of the shit the mad scientists are doing today.
>have we as humans stopped evolving since survival of the fittest doesn't affect us as much if at all?
No kek, we never stop adaptating to the environment and the conditions we put ourselves in. This is why eugenics are extremely important, it's very easy to fuck up with a custom or a government policy and end up with dysgenisis.
>are eugenics a viable option for keeping a strong human kind?
Again lel eugenics are the ONLY option for keeping a "strong" humankind. What did you think got us this far? Chance? Magic?
Without humanities(or some parts I should say)history for selectively choosing intelligence you don't have civilization bud.
>what traits would we even look for if we went through with it?
The traits that suit the situation, sure there are some things like overall health or intelligence that we've always selected for, but other than that and a few exceptions it should be ever changing.
>have we as humans stopped evolving
Survival of the fittest affects us as much as it ever has. Animals compete with other members of their own species, not with the environment. So long as different people produce different numbers of successful offspring we will continue to evolve
>are eugenics a viable option for keeping a strong human kind?
Your terms are terrible but basically yes
>what traits would we even look for if we went through with it?
Disease susceptibility would be a good start
>le gvt is da uegnicist
>I didn't marry him because he's fat
Eugenics
>what a sperg, he likes anime? Sorry no vagina
Eugenics
>I choose to be an unproductive criminal and died an early death
>eugenics
>I chose to be a lazy unproductive bum and as result have less money to rear children
Eugenics
>I was raised by ^ and learned nothing of value and then chose to be a lazy unproductive bum and as result have less money to rear children
Eugenics
Wash rinse repeat ad infinitum
>and a healthy mind that isn't subjected to autism
but autists are great for technical jobs. they can even develop decent social skills if they have proper counselling
You forgot making sure they have little to NO contact with "obsession black holes" like sonic the hedgehog.
Shits like alcohol to a Native to them.
...
...
sheeple
>are eugenics a viable option for keeping a strong human kind?
>Please keep the /pol/ to a minimum
yeesh
Thats just selection. Eugenics implies an organised and enforced program
WERE BREAKING THE CONDITIONING!!!!
AAAAAAAHHHHHRRRRGGGGGGAAAAAAHHHAHHHARUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
What is more organized, enforced and robust than nature itself? Did we spring from abstraction or selection?
Being alive=Undergoing eugenics
Environment is your "organised and enforced" system, with the requirements constantly changing.
Do you think just because we can shield ourselves from the more natural environmens we are free of nature or evolution?
Were just be replacing it with our own more humane environment that's changing just as fast and we'd be adapting to it as well.
Society by nature is eugenic, rules were invented for the purpose of facilitating collective human development ffs.
Societies don't socially enforce certain preferences of behaviour or characteristics?
Societies don't organize systems to promote preferred behaviours and traits?
How tall are you
I think it's inhumane to force people to be sterilized, no matter how bad their genes may be.
Woah there son, put the rhetoric away you might hurt someone. That's natural selection, Eugenics as its generally referred to would be an organized effort to alter the gene pool through selective reproduction. The individual preferences of humans are not the same, don't try so hard.
Eugenics was widely accepted at one time. Forced sterilization of undesirables actually happened and Im pretty sure it was started being practiced in the US first. Then Hitler went full retard and it became associated with him. Now it's just luck of the draw and you're nothing more than a means to an end for political gains. That's why we pay for illegals and mental ward patients etc etc. At this point the only way to procreate is to become more and more conniving or selfish. This is not good obviously.
Nature is the literal opposite of organised. Eugenics by definition is consciously interfering with the selective process on the scale of your entire civilisation. Its the same basic distinction between animal husbandry and natural selection
yeah can't wait for our species to be 14 ft tall on average. its really important we do this.
Isn't "tallness" actually a net negative now with technology? Larger bodies require additional sustenance to sustain them, the body itself breaks down faster than a more compact one, decreasing longevity and causing the earlier onset of infirmity.
I believe the ideal form of modern humans, in terms of what is most useful for our environment, would be a smaller, more compact form that may or may not have increased muscle mass (Which in itself might be a disadvantage, in the sense that bigger, more dense muscle = higher energy requirements, more resource intake). Intellect would trump all physical traits however, though intellect is a difficult thing to quantify.
That said, I would actually strongly suggest developing a large, diverse population until we know exactly what genes are most advantageous to humanity at the time, and then only maintaining a population of 20-40% who contain the selected genes, the rest of the population continuing to preserve the diverse gene set in case one they have becomes desirable at another time. [spoiler]Actually, it might be most advantageous to cause controlled mutations within some of the population for the development of new genes with previously unavailable traits in humans.[/spoiler]
>da ebil GMO's
Guess where your insulin comes from my overweight friend.
I fucking maintain these microscopic shits as my job and I'm always appalled when I meet a diabetic or someone who is close to a diabetic person and is staunchly against GMO's.
>Eugenics as its generally referred to would be an organized effort to alter the gene pool through selective reproduction.
Humans selectively reproduce just like every other animal period, even the dumbest of animals selectively reproduce and this results in changes of the gene pool.
Just look at any human group/society, they all have ingroup preferences and enforce them to varying degrees. This is selective breeding in itself, the reasons we have different races is due to selectively breeding.
Define your arbitrary definition of "organized" so we actually have something to even remotely discuss that isn't me just guessing what it is.
>The individual preferences of humans are not the same
So it's just a relative and arbitrary preference that we mostly breed with our ingroup? Or that we murder, cull or incarcerate people that break societies rules?(Which are mostly rules in and of themselves that we created to give us an edge in efficiency over other competing species.) Or choose someone that has skills that make them able to consistently provide for you as a mate? Or choose someone that is mentally sane so they won't murder you or your offspring at the drop of a hat?
These are all just random, preferences I guess, not purposeful at all. They don't have biological reasons do they? These things have nothing to do at all with an organized effort to alter the gene pool or restrict people that exhibit unfavorable traits from reproducing or participating in society right?
Next you'll be telling me ostracism is a spook.
>intellect is a difficult thing to quantify
not really, it's just that there are many facets of general intelligence that can be quantified separately.
>>have we as humans stopped evolving since survival of the fittest doesn't affect us as much if at all?
Humanity is turning more feminine.
>Nature is the literal opposite of organised.
Wew lad gobak2skool
>Eugenics by definition is consciously interfering with the selective process on the scale of your entire civilisation.
How conscious does it have to be for you to consider it eugenics? How big of a civilization before you consider it eugenics too?
Also how is selective breeding not part of nature if animals also take part in this? Mutation in itself results primary from selective breeding and inbreeding, without it there is no evolution.
Are you saying just because humans do it for a more complex reason that only then it's eugenics?
>Mein Fuhrer doesn't like manlets
>Reason: They are weaker overall
>All bellow 5'9 only get one child
>Generations later most men are taller
>Eugenics
>My pride leader doesn't like females with thin birthing hips
>Reason: muh dik, all lions like the phat pelvis
>Mostly breed with phat pelvis lions
>Most the female offspring have wide pelvis
>Not eugenics
Eugenics historically has been a racist movement but it doesn't have to be if we choose to select people who are more healthy and robust. However the human genome isn't yet sequenced and there is no authority to dictate ethical requirements. Evolution is always happening. It would be useful for mitigating heritable diseases but that does not mean DNA won't mutate.
That's exactly what makes it difficult to quantify. Certain aspects of a particular mind might be desirable, and others not. Even then, it's hard to say which specific aspects are desirable over others, and what constitutes an acceptable mix.
The illuminati is a mental virus, an algorithm designed to cull you. There are certainly self concerned bankers fucking with the cycle of money, but there is genuinely no global group trying to cull you intentionally. People at higher levels of thought can either love you infinitely or not give a fuck about you. Most CEOs are monsters.
>authority to dictate ethical requirements
The problem with that is, you're essentially telling someone else not to reproduce, which for many people is their life's goal (Subconsciously or not). The ensuing violence that would happen as a result of two polar opposite desires would be catastrophic.
I know if I was served with a notice of sterilization or euthanization, I would take my chances in armed rebellion instead of willing submission.
>have we as humans stopped evolving
No. This isn't a political question, research has been done. We're becoming less susceptible to heart attacks and distributing our fat differently.
>what traits would we even look for if we went through with it?
I would like it if we got subsidized sperm-picking to prevent passing on genetic disorders.
npr.org
>Many of the illnesses that we confront today are what evolutionary biologists called "mismatch diseases": ... Diseases that occur because our bodies are poorly or inadequately adapted to environments in which we now live. An example would be eating large amounts of sugar or being very physically inactive leads to problems like diabetes or heart disease that then make us sick. So mismatched diseases are diseases that are more modern in the sense that they're more prevalent, or even novel or more severe, because we don't live in the way in which our bodies are adapted.
>Eugenics historically has been a racist movement
So now the Nazi's are the only people who've ever had a eugenics program?
What do you want racial quotas for selective breeding too now kek.
>but it doesn't have to be if we choose to select people who are more healthy and robust.
Everyone wants to select for those traits and they always have in eugenics programs.
Do you want to import some robust somalis to ensure that the program isn't exclusionary to minorities?
>there is no authority to dictate ethical requirements
Who the hell cares, do you need some bureaucrats who aren't even remotely familiar with the science to write up an ethics code no one will follow before you consider it?