Eugenics

I think you missed the point

someone with poor genes can do really well because of blind luck, and thus pass on poor genes

but those odds can only carry so far (see:natural selection)

under a eugenic model, people who "make better use of" their abilities if you see it like that will still exist
everyone will just have more innate potential

what do you mean?
I mean that someone with downs might actively want to have children with downs

estimates are widely held that we could erradicate downs syndrome, parkinsons and some childhood cancers within two eugenic generations

imagine a world where all those people lived their full potencial, free from handicaps
the burden that would lift from society, the reduction in human misery

people with down's are usually infertile and downs itself isn't even genetic

you're going full retard

>>>/reddit/

Allow gay marriage. Breed out the gays.

By supporting Planned Parenthood.

haha, I see where the confusion comes from

my understanding is that downs itself isn't genetic, but the risk factors of it are

and secondly, a range of genetic issues and birth defects could be removed through a range of practices
even though some issues are not technically DNA related, I see no reason to distinguish the practices of removing either

that is a complex argument

on the one hand planned parenthood means women are much more likely to have children withing stable relationships

it also means a possible reduction of birthrate of some of our best; because being advantaged is no guarentee that they would want more children

disadvantaged could breed like rabits
advantaged could breed like elephants

it's a strong arguemnt for coercive or forced eugenic practices, because there are so many risks with allowing a free for all

>it's a strong arguemnt for coercive or forced eugenic practices
You cannot breach the social contract, people aren't going to take kindly to being told they can't fuck because they lost a cosmic lottery.

It's happening completely naturally already. Men are getting taller with every generation. Soon there won't be any manlets left.

the social contract is defined by current concensus

the people will consent when they see the benefits

I was thinking first subsidies for public gene screening, for a few condition
then a social drive, like for vacinations back in the day, "if you didn't screen you are risking your child getting parkinsons"

then allowing discrimination on that basis, schools only accept kids who are vaccinated, they could only allow screened kids

thus the social contract would be changed quickly

So y'all are just going to ignore , huh.

>being this butthurt you're a failure so you blame it on MUH GENETICS

more funding for research is always good, but I believe we are currently in the "world is flat" phase of understanding

the evidence is there for eugenics, the means are abundant

it's the social ignorance, political game-playing and the vocal minority holding us back as a species

>denying reality this hard
I bet you think you'll retire as a multimillionaire before the age of 50 as long as you work hard enough too...

>merely a consequence of genes
Confirmed for not knowing shit about genetics.

Adn =/= gene expression
Phenotype = Genotype + Enviroment

Fuck off back to /pol/ you pseudoscientist shit

>I bet you think you'll retire as a multimillionaire before the age of 50 as long as you work hard enough too...

lots of people seem to have swallows that blue pill pretty hard
libertarians especially
anyone who's parent succeeded and thus believes anyone could do the same
anyone who did well in school, but doesn't understand "well" is relative, thus anyone could potentially do well; yet it's impossible for everyone to do well at the same time

I think you're dramatically missing the point, here. Eugenics is obsolete. Technology has passed it by. If you're going to ignore that fact then you can't be taken seriously.

have some restraint, while the concepts are relative simple the physical science is much more complex

I would hope that we are capable of having a conceptual debate, try to be constructive

you say obsolete

I say overlooked, under-valued, shunned

I believe it to be a sound and beneficial science held back by misunderstanding, wilful ignorance, vested interest, theist dogma and historical revisionism

>people are merely a consequence of whatever genes they win in the cosmic reincarnation lottery and that free will is a lie.

False, people are unequivocally a product of their environment as well

Take two twins at birth, give one of them go a foster family in a slum who abuses them, and give the other to a well-off foster family who encourages their academic development, spends a lot of time with them, invests a lot of time and effort into parenting them

They will turn out to be very different people. You moron.

the real goal of eugenics was to create specialized breeds of people, like miners for example

countless twin studies say otherwise

Are you just making shit up because it feels good and sounds about right?

But it is obsolete, literally. There is every indication that genetic engineering will do everything selective breeding could, better and faster, without the need for a totalitarian regime. So what exactly are you defending and why, other than trying to be edgy?

Genetics determine a lot of your shit, but to act as if they decide your life for you in total is loser talk

genetic engineering is another means to a similar ends

I'm not going to attack it, and I don't see why we can't do both

>I don't see why we can't do both

Because you don't want to see, because it ruins your edgy opinion.

>why not both?
Because there's no point on using an obsolete less-efficient method. If you're all for human "efficiency" then you should understand this.

>I would see it as cracking a potato to make an omelette but views might vary
Holy fucking kek.

eugenics in a modern setting would be taking a sperm cell carrying the genome you fiddle with and similarly an egg cell and forming a zygote

no actual humans are needed, i really don't understand eugenics-fags, they seem to be imagining somtehing more romantic

We try our hardest to avoid it because it never ends well.

Never

>he doesn't know about epigenetics

Can someone link me to some "proof" ?

of what