Scientifics Process Effected by Social Concerns

The real question is how you have time to type while you're reading those papers

Because you are reading those papers, aren't you

We have historical accounts of eugenics to look at. See

>what the fuck is this racist ignorance LOL?

Uhh, humans are apes and IQ is 75% heritable.

So yea, don't breed with low IQ apes is pretty solid advice.

What are you even doing on the science board you idiot luddite?

Scientists with no morals experimented on humans and babies so they found cures to fix toddlers and prevent diseases that saved millios of people.

Aside from your SJWtard-tier shitposting and assimilation propaganda, morals ARE a roadblock for scienctific progress.

How is invitro fertilization immoral? I'd love to here it.

don't try to reason with SJWtards. Talk them in shitposting language so they can understand.

>nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Your first link is broken. Maybe you should put more effort into proving you shouldn't be sterilized for the good of humanity.

Direct unproven human experimentation is also a roadblock to developing better methods of experimentation, which has made quite some progress from those days, eliminating the need for that in modern times.
>How is invitro fertilization immoral? I'd love to here it.
wut. That's like saying choosing an ideal mate is immoral too. It's not. Forcing someone to however, is.

I'm not saying we should go full Unit-731 style but unless you experiment on babies, you'll never figure out their developmental problems. And since no parent will have their baby experimented on, you'll have to do it without their consent.

I looked at the main points being made, and I couldn't find any information proving the points in that video. As a great scholar you really are, maybe you should us those points from those articles to save our time.

Without such experiments, there wouldn't be any process in the terms of medicine, and cures to diseases wouldn't be possible. As a good side retards like you wouldn't be alive.

What a bunch of unprogressive bigotry ITT

There is a reason all the leaders, all the good universities and pretty much every scientist are on MY side, not the ignorant yours.

Fuck this board, what a bunch of underage neonazi drumpf supporters. Back to Veeky Forums I guess, the last bastion free of the /pol/ cancer

>Stopping all the research on eugenics
Only in westerncuck countries
China is picking up the pieces

Experimental treatments are used all the time as a last resort. They are able to be fairly well-tested beforehand through modern methods though. We really don't need to experiment unproven stuff on babies. Saying we should is immoral. It always was, but at least they could say there were no alternatives back then.

>wut.

Are you saying that selecting for the best embryos in invitro isn't eugenic?

My point is you argued all eugenics is immoral. While genocide or forced sterilization certainly are, they don't encompass the totality of eugenic methods.

...

>Saying we should is immoral
Immorality is not a factor in scientific progress. If research on babies could help prevent a disease that can save thousands of them later on, then its not immoral. It's what needs to be done to progress in the field.

Forced sterilization is implied when talking about eugenics. Simple sperm donation weeds out bad genetics, nothing wrong with that, depending on your filter methods. Out-right refusing African sperm would be wrong. However, customers get to choose their sperm and the overwhelming preference is for blonde blue-eyed whites. So I don't call it eugenics. Simple mate selection =/= eugenics IMO.

>Forced sterilization is implied when talking about eugenics

>Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnJks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin")[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population

Sounds like you have some personal biases you need to work out. Hopefully in the future you won't fall for propaganda.

The OP specifically mentioned race. He is not talking about the dictionary definition, but rather the historical connotations associated with the word.

>Immorality is not a factor. Here's a moral argument for researching on babies.

>He is not talking about the dictionary definition, but rather the historical connotations associated with the word

Incredible mind reading abilities you imply you have. He really seems to be talking about modern propaganda surrounding eugenics, which you are spouting when you say "Eugenics implies forced sterilization".

Really it just seems you can't admit you were wrong when you said that eugenics is inherently immoral.

Saving babies is more than morality, its about survival. I think we came to our senses on that after the black plague annihilated a good portion of humanity.
If the total outcome of the baby experiment is less dead babies and more cured babies, then it's only logical to do it.

More like YUUUUGGEnics

This user gets it.

Superior genetics should be supported, but saying that doesn't mean we imply inferior ones to be removed. As you are thinking of Third Reich's experiments, I would refer to that to explain it;

Trying to improve quality of what they called aryan race: good thing, and what eugenics really stand for. Completely harmless.
Trying to remove races they called lesser ones: The thing that literally no one supporting eugenics talk about.

I contextually agree with you but your post sounds like a sjw parody /pol/ would write up to make other /pol/ tards think less of your "side" and you're using lots of /pol/ trigger words.

greentexting your post gave me 11min ban

"You are temporarily blocked from posting for violating Global 3 - Garbage Outside of /b/"