"Eugenics" but not really

>trusting the women instead

in coming future technology will allow us to modify the genes of incoming people to be free of genetic defect anyway

no real reason to stick to anything as antiquated as eugenics

Imo, such restrictions are not compatible with modern western values. I'm in favor of encouraging adoption instead.

>implying anyone 'knows' how to be a parent
You can read books and gossip with other moms at Starbucks, but trial and error is it really.

>yes I'm a father.

youtube.com/watch?v=czr-98yo6RU

What is it called if you implement eugenics favoring traits like moral character and empathy?

>empathy
Aka cuckoldry. And your answer is Gynocentrism.

we're well on our way to Metropolis

Perhaps simple encouragement campaigns to make people investigate their hereditary history and genes. If there is potential for a child to be born with a disease the campaign would also encourage gene therapy.

>what is a religion
>what is familial structure

As long as a woman can breed, she can and will continue being a whore.

>implying there wasn't a gigantic share of cuckoldry and adultery even in traditional societies

Yes, something like that. But good luck bringing voluntary eugenics up in a conversation irl. Hitler really fucked that topic.

That assumes that they have a genetic basis, which they don't. If you have a normal functioning human brain, you already have the capacity for both. And while empathy is certainly a good quality, too much of it makes you a SJW pussy.

>moral character
>objective trait
pick one

Back to /r9k/ friendo

Hey bro, 2012-era /r9k/ called, they're wondering why you went missing.

So no argument on your side?

All criminals and physical defects should be sterilised, only the best people with the best genes are allowed to pass on their genes

Avoiding the word Eugenics would be a good start. Other than that playing the moral/ethical argument could work. People don't want to look like cold-monster irl so presenting it as a duty for a parent to provide their child a healthy future is possible.

Granted I'm still not sure it could work in the current climate.

who decides what 'the best' are?

Back to r*ddit with your catchphrase kiddo

Ok
isogg.org/wiki/Non-paternity_event
As you can see even in degenarate countries the numbers are not very big.

Which diseases would we start with? It's a pretty broad term. We could only target the most severe then progress to stuff like needing glasses as it becomes more socially acceptable.

Explain Afghanistan and Turkey then. Some of the most racemixed countries on the planet despite being extremely traditional.

Eugenics fucking sucks, look at inbred show dogs.

1.Why would you bring racemixing?
2.Islam do not forbid racemixing
3.Those regions where already mixed back in prehistory

>racemixing is good
Exactly why we need to stop bisexual reproduction. Women being whores and men thinking with their cocks rather than their brains and flushing their genes down the toilet.

what we need today is quality people making more kids, shitty people making kids isnt realy a issue since the birthrates are plumetting any way

The elite eschew eugenics because they don't want competition. A dysgenic barely self aware mass of people with all kinds of horrible genetic diseases that are profitable to treat is in their best interests.

Opposition to eugenics is a complete sham and is ironically holding back prospects for a truly more egalitarian society.

>mfw i realize i've been trying to communicate with a litteral autist
i-i have not been formed for that

SJWs don't have empathy, they're just posturing.

You'd just be confused for a pro-abortion activist.

>That assumes that they have a genetic basis, which they don't.
What basis do they have then? Of course, nurture is a factor too but the "basis" is still genetic.

"Beating the shit out of kids is bad therefore we should deny basic human rights."

>moral character is hereditary
Commodus says hi

Hate to be this guy, but "morality" is subjective as fuck. Incest (immediate family) and cannibalism are widely disdained by most humans, although you can find ritualistic versions of both. Murder and theft are widely looked down on, except when they're not, which is often enough.

Empathy is a trait unique to humans. Indeed, it is one of the hallmarks of higher cognitive functions that puts the 'sapiens' in homo sapiens. Although a few certain other animals (elephants, chimps, dolphins) can also pass the Mirror Test, they are not quite lofty enough to pass Theory of Mind tests (even children younger than 3-4 cannot).

Selectively breeding for it is therefore kinda pointless, since it would be like selectively breeding for spinal columns.

That said, I get that some people are more or less empathetic, but that's more to do with the software a brain is running, as the hardware itself already includes that.

And anyway, as I said, too much empathy is not a good thing.

>but "morality" is subjective as fuck
I agree, the the biology that defines is identical for all individuals of the same species.

>Although a few certain other animals (elephants, chimps, dolphins) can also pass the Mirror Test, they are not quite lofty enough to pass Theory of Mind tests (even children younger than 3-4 cannot)
The concept of empathy is more complex than that. The point is, though, that all of its elements are genetically defined.

>Selectively breeding for it is therefore kinda pointless, since it would be like selectively breeding for spinal columns.
No, it would be like selectively breeding for blond hair. The same trait can be expressed in different ways. There are probably different genes for spinal columns. For example the propensity to develop spinal disk herniation is probably genetically defined. Your feature based approach is dumb. In the first place empathy is not even one thing. Second there are various genes that define the density of various neurotransmitters or neuron growth or neuron activity in each individual part of the brain etc.etc. It's like saying that all people are by nature equally good at sports because we all have muscles or that all people are by nature equally intelligent because we all have brains.

>Too much empathy is not a good thing
On what basis did you come to that conclusion? You were the one who said that morality is subjective.

>empathy is not even one thing.
Which is why I am arguing that 'selecting' for it is futile.

>Too much empathy is not a good thing
>On what basis did you come to that conclusion?
Morality is indeed subjective. Remember however, I am not the one arguing that eugenics is a good idea and should be based on 'morality' or empathy. I'm arguing that it's a silly wild good chase of an idea.

Now, I have already acknowledged that some empathy is certainly good. But you can have too much of a good thing. The 'improvement' of a sufficiently empathetic person is not even more empathy, but the development of other complementary and enriching characteristics. Taken to extremes, a highly empathetic person is so empathetic that their own 'wills' or whims are entirely neglected. If everyone is empathetic, nothing substantial would ever get done. Even worse, what if you empathize with retards, homicidal maniacs like ISIS? More empathy doesn't necessarily always improve a situation. Is that really going to make your own behaviour more beneficial to the species generally, or to others more specifically? I'd say no.

Anyhow, one would first have to ID and prove what set of genes code for empathy. Good luck with that.

>I am not the one arguing that eugenics is a good idea and should be based on 'morality' or empathy.
Neither am I.
>a highly empathetic person is so empathetic that their own 'wills' or whims are entirely neglected. If everyone is empathetic, nothing substantial would ever get done.
I don't think you don't know how biology works.
>Even worse, what if you empathize with retards, homicidal maniacs like ISIS?
>Even worse
I take this is a rhetorical question but I'm actually curious about what you think would happen that is so bad.
>More empathy doesn't necessarily always improve a situation.
Nor does less.
Define improve.
> Is that really going to make your own behavior more beneficial to the species generally,
Why should I care about the species again?
>or to others more specifically?
That's the plan.

Immoral, and whos to say whats good and bad? everything has its ups and downs.

This will likely happen before any serious debate can be made, with the process having already occurred to the majority of the people when we ask for sterilization. Then again, I sure as shit am not a geneticist or anywhere near an accredited scientist

Eugenics is slower, often crueler, and less accurate in affecting recessive or complex polygenic traits than direct germline engineering will be. I don't see how it's necessary. I agree with some of the points you raise ethically but we should also consider genetic diversity. Some traits like CF that are harmful when homozygous are beneficial when heterozygous. Mental illnesses like autism can play specialized roles in a minority of savants. I don't think society is really weighed down that much by the number of retards we have today. They rarely breed, anyway. Only mild retardation is part of the normal distribution of intelligence. Most profound or severe retardation has prenatal environmental causes or random genetic defects.

>morality and compassion are cuckoldry

The internet has ruined you.

>Implying that being healthy is always leading to healthy children, lol.

In pregnancy there can happen a lot of shit that makes a child retarded or otherwise handicapped.