What are the arguments against eugenics...

>I don't see how it is a problem or how it is "bad " to have more smarter/stronger/abled people in your society?

problem is eugenics doesn't do that

The arguments against it are philosophical afaik. If you don't consider the right to reproduce to be a "human right" (not sure what else to call it), then it's easy to favor eugenics. If you believe the right to have children is an inalienable right, or that under normal circumstances the state shouldn't exercise authority over reproductive choices, then eugenics is problematic.

In practical terms, how would you ensure such a system was fair? Can people be trusted to run something like that? What if people make exceptions, or if there's some sort of mistake in the testing or eligibility criteria that allows the wrong people to reproduce?

Would you still be in favour if I told you you were on the forced sterilisation list?

Smart people are more likely to have smart children. Therefore, if we were to stop stupid people from reproducing, eventually we'd have fewer stupid people. This isn't exactly complicated.

Not really
History shown that the rich and powerful have a habit of gaining inbred retards, and then there is the success stories of people going from rags to riches (It's kinda weird Carnegie supported Eugenics given his origin).

If you equate acquiring riches and power to intelligence and losing it indicating a lack thereof then eugenics is complete bullshit.

I said "more likely" not "without exception". Yes, two smart people can have a child that's dumb as rock(especially when you throw inbreeding into the mix, which was not an uncommon event among the rich and the powerful in the past. And that's before you get into things like using lead in make-up, which will do bad things to the fetus when you're pregnant - or just plain fetal alcohol syndrome), and a genius can come from a family of idiots, but those are exceptions, not the rule.

Okay, I was lying when I said it's not complicated since just defining what "intelligent" is is actually pretty complicated(what IS intelligence anyway? IQ tests measure pattern recognition and language skills, but it's clearly more complicated than that - those are just the things we can agree make up part of intelligence and are fairly simple to measure) and environmental factors can have a huge impact(if you have poor nutrition and no access to decent education, you'll be less intelligent as an adult than if you had good nutrition and good education), but once you control for environmental factors, it turns out that intelligence IS hereditary, at least to a degree.

So to sum it up: Smart people are more likely to have smart children.

Yeah so can't we take progressivism back from the cucks?

Eugenics has been discredited when taken too far.

eugenics literally doesn't have any downside, just give me the power to decide who gets to reproduce and i swear i won't go against the basic principles and goal of eugenics and unfairly target ethnic groups which hurt my feelings.
it's the same argument people have against communism.

>if you breed the smartest then you get smart people
>who is the smartest
>Everyone: MEEEE!

Smart people are more likely to have a higher standard when it comes to raising their children. Children from succesful parents benefit from their parents' behaviour and are more exposed to beneficial information in all kinds of different ways. It's not necesseraly intelligence itself

I'd just start with eradicating serious hereditary diseases from the genepool.

It has to be done by non-human beings

Humans can selectively breed animals just fine, but their bias gets in the way of maximizing human traits.

If aliens invade or if robots/artificial beings are advanced enough we can give them the suggestion.

That's why researchers use twin studies, user.
dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/18330/Wright_Twin Research_4(1)_2001_u.pdf?sequence=2

IQ is 80% heritable most of the remaining 20% being explained by nutrition, injury and illness and of course it being controlled by many different alleles. Smart people have smart children

Sure, intelligence has to be hereditary to some degree, but children who don't inherit the intellect from their smart parents but still get to grow up in a household where there's more emphasis on education (not necessarily formal but all the education in life so to say) have a higher chance of becoming succesful (in whatever way that may be) compared with children with similar IQ but from different households

So?

>who, exactly, gets to decide what is bad and what is good
Me, obviously. And gene-editing is a meme, we don't know enough about DNA to do it

>unsupportive to personal liberties, which can be a slippery slope type of deal, as certain people will be killed, sterilized or made incels
>would need to make a SERIOUS CASE as to why liberties should be curtailed
>people effected or sympathetic to those effected may try to revolt out of fear of being cut out
>implies a very strong governing body, which means for better or worse the fate of the many is held by the few and they may make poor choices regarding which traits they seek to maintain/lose
>difficult to actually discern as to whether the end result will be the one desired
>implicitly naive materialist/reductionist mindset, which isn't an issue in itself exactly, but does show a lack of considering other schools of thought regarding freedom, the role of the human and so on
>would be opposed by most religions
>generally speaking unpragmatic, would require a strong focus on internal resources of those undertaking the program which would render them more deficient in other areas i.e. defense, resources, infrastructure, diplomacy, et cetera.

What is considered "smarter/stronger/abled" is largely subjective and conducive to outright oppression. How would you feel if suddenly your government decided that you and your family should be bred out or killed?

people have a right to live and a right to find a mate and a right to reproduce
you can't have eugenics without taking away or at least severely limiting those rights
also you can almost never be 100% sure what a given genetic change will cause, especially a few years/generations down the road

>Hey user, come in, take a seat.
>I'm afraid I have some bad news. Your grandfather died of heart disease, and you have a slight predisposition towards lung cancer.
>So, if you wouldn't mind popping your pants off we'll have the snipping done before you know it, and you can walk out of here in time for lunch. We'll even give you your balls in a little doggybag, we hear some people like to put them on their mantelpiece.

What if they just don't tell anyone they're doing it? The government that is. Massive psyop to promote smarter and stronger population for the future. USA gov't doesn't mind keeping people in the dark

And how are they going to do that? Do you really think the government can secretly and selectively sterilize undesired people while also secretly and selectively ensure only desirable (and fertile) people can breed?

They usually boil down to human rights. Although I think "soft eugenics" should be allowed, for instance paying people to get sterilized (only retards would do that), or giving incentives for working mothers to have more babies (tax breaks, subsidized daycare, etc.)

The bad effects of inbreeding are negated by one generation of exogamy, you low iq brainlet.

The US can't even stage a coup in a failed state without it being discovered.

Look at animals people actually breed, they are riddled with genetic diseases and crippling health issues.

The genetic diseases that afflict domesticated animals are the result of the industrial revolution and Victorian pet fads, not any flaw in the breeding programs. The pug and Bulldog, for example, were both completely healthy when they were bred to be working animals where such genetic faults would limit the animals ability to perform its job. Seriously, look up pre-WWI depictions of dogs, many of them look nothing like the animals they are today. The lesson to be learned here is not one of the breeding program failing but in fact of the (disastrous) effects of stopping the breeding program. When dogs are bred to be healthy, there are no problems; when you just churn up puppies because everyone wants one no matter what quality the animal will be, you get genetic ailments. I will acquiesce you're right that some animals (IE, horses) become hyper specialized but we humans aren't specialists at all.

You just offer it willingly, why would you need to secretly do this? Offer government sponsored genetic testing and government sponsored genetic engineering. You and your spouse have a disposition towards alzheimer's and heart disease? Here, let's alter a few sperm and an egg and voila, no disposition to disease!

Forced sterilization was a symptom of the times, not the entire idea (Unless you're a member of the Democrat Party). As I've said, just do voluntary genetic engineering for couples.

if you're having a nightmare, everything's o.k.