So what is preventing an eugenics program? Arrogance?

>Every edgy faggot is a /pol/ack now.

What bigotry? I only suggested a eugenics program to improve humanity as a whole would be beneficial. You probably think that means killing off a bunch of people.

>WAAH WAAH I DONT LIKE THE IDEA OF HUMANS THAT ARE REALLY BETTER THAN ME WAAH EVERYONE SHOULD BE STUCK WITH THEIR GENETICS EVEN IF IT RUINS THEIR LIVES AND THEIR DESCENDENT'S LIVES WAAAAHHH DONT BE BETTER THAN ME WAAAHH

Anti-eugenicist arguments summed up above.

If they aren't, then they'll soon will be.

Basic legal rights.

Sterilizing large numbers of people and forcing others to accept government-determined breeding partners is pretty much the most totalitarian thing you can possible do.

because to reduce a human's worth to only their genetics is really really dehumanizing

I know right? :P

>Arrogance?
Arrogance is willing to make an eugenic program. Who are you to decide what genetical traits are to favor ?

generally this but also who would administrate it? Humans instantly turn into megacunts when they are given the power like deciding who breeds and who doesn't.

We can just use genetic modification anyway.

Eugenics can't make anime real, OP. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Even if an eugenics program came into being, it would have the same issues single strain crops have: vulnerability to diseases. Imagine if you filtered out the gene or genes responsible for sickle cell anemia but then you had a massive uncontrolled malaria outbreak?

Progressively eliminating genetic defects that cause congenital diseases is something I'm pretty sure everyone would favor. Pretty sure everyone would be alright with improving the next generation's physical and mental capabilities would be alright.

I'm not talking about genocide or whatever.

>Who are you to X?
This meme question needs to die. I'm just another guy, which makes me as good as anyone else to make decisions.

Fuck off to Reddit, you shitposting faggot.

And who in their right mind would disagree with the assertion that higher intelligence is desirable in a population? How about we start with something we all agree upon. Cut welfare for the 7-member families, lower taxes on entrepreneurs and financiers. Watch the world prosper.

A) how do you know what is actually positive, now or in the near future?
B) It's unethical
C) It can't be implemented for most traits in practice

I've taken the liberty of using a population simulator (albeit with an infinite population, so no gene drift) to simulate a simple selection process for a monogenous dominant trait with two possible allels.
The recessive and easily identifiable homozygote is awarded a fitness of zero, it is in effect a mutation that completely prevents passing on the allel (Which just seems unlikely to happen even for an easily identified homozygote).
Allel frequency charts the frequency of the desired Allel.
Note that it never reaches 100% even after 1000 generations of this simulation, instead kind of never going beyond 0.999% saturation.

As the efficacy of genetic testing becomes better and the cost sinks low enough to be able to do a standard test for each individual the efficacy of this selection may become better (Since heterozygotes could then also be rewarded a fitness of zero) but at the moment even for something as simple as eliminating a recessive allel on a diallelic locus the process of eugenics isn't particularly useful.
Something polygenic or with multiple allels would become even more of an annoyance to select for, especially in terms of A) unless it's explicitly a genetic disease and even then a disease can have positives such as sickle cell on heterozygotes.

>physical and mental capabilities
Which would be ? How do you quantify intelligence ? Why do you think being strong physicaly is a "good" thing ?

>And who in their right mind would disagree with the assertion that higher intelligence is desirable in a population?

No one. Eugenics can be used just as easily to take things away.

>Better memory, better problem solving skills, better perception
>Being stronger isn't a good thing

Fuck me.

Yes it could its just that anime characters would look like deformed freaks in real life.

>lower taxes on entrepreneurs and financiers.
Make it easier on people who already have it easier?

Only passive eugenics is proper today. When another nation decides to show their power level on it out of self preservation everyone willing has to hop on.

How about eugenics available for people voluntarily who want to cut out recognized genentic health conditions out of their genes? Get rid of shit like allergies and psoriasis and stuff.

Or are we talking about forcibly sterilizing 'undesirables'?

that's not Griffith, that's Johan.

That's what some elite want UBI for virility curbing.

That's exactly what the Progressive movement said a hundred years ago; have you read the history of IQ testing, or read about forced sterilization in the US? People rejected these ideas after Action T4 and seeing what your theory entailed when put into practice. If you want to tell people to forget that, that it will be okay this time, go ahead.

Give me one reason why people with Down syndrome shouldn't be sterilized.

Because that implies that pre-screening for Downies and selective abortion hasn't become common enough that people with Down's Syndrome don't exist outside of the first trimester of pregnancy.

Eugenics already exists. Every time a woman does an abortion she's essentially eugenicizing the population.

In truth, it's because it's become associated with nazism and other ideologies which are unpalatable to the general population.

But it's better that it is so. All we have are a few correlation studies between small sets of genes and the different phenotypes. When we look into these studies, no one can tell which combination of genes gives you autism, or higher IQ, or breast cancer, or whatnot. Only a few higher or lower odds, or prerequisites (some people will never develop schizofrenia regardless of environmental factors because the code for it just isn't there). And most people who push for eugenics tend to have an additive/subtraptive view of genes, as if they are legos. In reality, it's the combination of genes (with it's expression conditioned by the environmental context) that is at work. The notion that any given gene on it's own has fitness value is absurd; the bigger picture is missing. E.g. autism genes have been linked to higher than average intelligence, while autism itself is linked to lower than average intelligence.

By the time we do understand genetics well-enough, we'll have the designer baby option and society will rethink it's stance on eugenics.

Females definitely as they could be exploited and have a child they are not capable of caring. This was the Swedish motive for eugenics.

>Being stronger isn't a good thing
No it's not, strengh is meaningless in our society but a strong body consume more than a tiny body. Why would you want everyone to consume more ? That's dangerous at a humanity scale.

What's a "better" memory ? Being able to remember a bunch of stuff ? There's different kind of memories, that's different kind of mind and you can't tell who's gonna find the right answer.

It's like doing researchs for science. You don't always look at the same place, you look in all kinds of place, even if it sounds stupid, that's how you discover stuff, often by chance or accident. What you need is a lot of different people, not your conception of "better".

We'd have to kill off all 4channers, since virgins are not physically fit.

I know this is a troll but I don't if you realize you'd be first in line

Freedom. Namely the freedom to reproduce with whom you please, have kids when you please, have as many as you like. Reproductive freedom. These freedoms would have to be eliminated, and people are too short sighted to eliminate their own freedoms for some far-flung goal whose benefits will be reaped by future generations. People only embrace far flung goals where freedom doesn't have to be sacrificed permanently.

There's also this.

And, more interestingly, there's the avg. dumbass's superstition about GMOs, "playing God" etc.

religious bullshit

China has a huge genetic research and development sector because they have a much more scientific view.

Don't get me wrong there - not 0%, but not 70% either. What France and Norway do is lessen motives for smart people to make kids as they can't afford to educate them (intelligent people think ahead) while simultaneously importing low-IQ high-testosterone indoctrinated lazy welfare leeches who have kids for the sake of 'spreading their genes'. This is INSANITY, dysgenics defined.

>China has a huge genetic research and development sector because they have a much more scientific view.
Ah yes, "let's make fucking rabbit people and only abort them because of international pressure" China.

>preventing

its been going on for decades now. not in the mainstream of course.

>How about we start with something we all agree upon. Cut welfare for the 7-member families, lower taxes on entrepreneurs and financiers.
Too obvious.

Have you ever taken a look at the prerequisites for donating semen?

It already exists.

>atomic energy is good in the long term

You don't know a lot about energy do you?

Fuck off, newfag

Because in practical terms all you're doing is letting the government decide who gets to marry who. It's invariably turns into a human rights shitshow.

whereas it is (relatively) easy, for example, to breed cattle for higher milk yield, defining what is meant by a "better" human being is a very difficult question. At this point eugenics stops being scientific and starts being normative and political, and a rather nasty type of politics at that.

The most obvious flaw with application of eugenics is that its proponents have tended to conflate phenotypical (read: superficial) traits with genotypical traits. Any species that looks fit on the outside may carry recessive traits that don't exhibit themselves but will be passed on and vice versa. The development of the field of epigenetics, i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.

There is no reason to believe that a selective breeding plan to encourage certain physical traits in humans could not achieve the same results that plant and animal breeders have achieved for centuries (who were without specific knowledge of the genes they were selecting in and out). Odds are that the purebred humans with distinguishing features would be less healthy than the offspring of unconstrained mating would be, for the same reason that kennel-club purebred dogs are often less healthy than mutts. This concept of "purity" is flawed in that it creates many of the same problems as inbreeding—a loss of biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to a common concentrated weakness. An example of this would be deer populations. A long time ago, natural selection selected for fitter males with antlers, but cue the rise of sport hunting and antlered populations plunged down fast. Another example of concentration is haemophilia, which became the plague of the royal families.

Because feels. Honestly wouldn't even be hard to do it semi-morally. Pay undesirables (low IQ comes to mind) to sterilize, and subsidize the reproduction of high IQ couples. Ez Pz, didn't even have to force sterilization on people.

Eugenics is inevitable if humanity doesn't destroy itself

Anime shitposters

Not that I'm advocating eugenics, but it's not impossible imaging humans modifying themselves to grow green hair and red eyes and pass those traits along to their kids, along with slender bodies and proportionately huge eyes.

Maybe the only really humane eugenics program is the one where the masses are given control of their own genetic destinies, allowing people to specialize and experiment without interference from the government once the technology has matured enough to allow mass distribution.

t. Virginian senator in 1924

everyone would either become a vampire or a furry

Eh. It will happen but it will be through gene therapy.

Kurzweil changed his prediction of immortality from 2045 to 2029 now so he thinks it will happen sooner than later now.

Eugenics programs are already in effect, everyone ITT either doesn't understand or doesn't want to acknowledge that welfare largely promotes dysgenics.

"Eugenics" never went away, it's just been made impossible to talk about. And we are all the worse for it.

>Conflating the wealth gap with eugenics

lel this

In the time it would take you to selectively breed a human with a trait one standard deviation over the baseline, I could genetically engineer/cybernetically augment a human with a trait one order of magnitude over the baseline.

Do you see loser nerds getting laid? Do you? There you go.

literally the first (and probably last) thing posted in this thread that isn't batshit retarded

I don't want to get sterilized and I don't care about who decides to have kids.

Where did they come from in the first place?
A lot of the 'losers' on Veeky Forums who spend their teens and early twenties whining will presumably eventually settle for someone desperate enough and some of these unions will then produce children. Same goes for the poor or the deprived or even the disabled.

Why don't you start this project by kicking the bucket yourself?

Nuclear fusion was what I specifically was referring to. Fission is the go to idea when someone mentions atomic energy. I'm aware of the risks with fission, deriving energy from atomic reactions is far less damaging that developing weapons with it.

Think of the applications in space though, wear it presents zero danger as long as it's not weaponized.

becuase muh racism

>It's a /pol/lack is unable to discern the dozens of factors there are outside of race in any given situation, even and especially in eugenics

Why don't you also help the eugenic cause and jump in front of a train?

*where

>Think of the applications in space though
Fission isn't warranted enough as an energy source for most missions.

>wear it presents zero danger as long as it's not weaponized.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. First off you have to get the material into orbit, and doing that is already risky enough without the potential for a miniature dirty bomb going off mid-travel. Second you'd only really need or want fission for long-term missions, and if that involve people the risks remain very similar. Third, if you have the basic material needed for to make energy, you already have the material and means for a weapon. The actual weaponisation part isn't very hard. Fourth,

>as long as it's not weaponized.
Have fun convincing everyone of that. I'm not saying it's impossible, just painfully hard.

>This meme question needs to die. I'm just another guy, which makes me as good as anyone else to make decisions.

Are you reading the words you type? Does just anybody get to decide how to build bridges or pilot aircraft? Does just anybody write A Modest Proposal or build cabinets?

No you fucking dilweed. Decision making requires relevant knowledge and skills.

You can demonstrate your knowledge of eugenics or discuss your certifications as a geneticist, or you can concede you have none, but sidestepping the point like that is obviously some kind of Bard trick and you are clearly attempting to hex us.