Why aren't we practicing this again? Outside religious "reasoning" there is no sensible explanation why eugenics are banned.
>it's false science
Wrong.
>results would take generations
Only one generation for minor alterations such as lesser risk of hereditary diseases. Dog breeding evidence suggests no more than four generations even for larger changes.
>killing is wrong
Agreed. But abortion and preventive devices are not.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
because we'd have tell people who they're allowed to fuck and which babies are allowed to live and I don't think that's legal or even possible
We are though. 90% of downs syndrom babies are aborted.
Being overzealous is a good way to end up with a retarded populous. That's what happened to china. They selected for people who could do arbitrary tests and now they're a country of cheaters.
We already are. Abortion is eugenics we've fooled bleeding hearts into accepting.
because society is not a seperate construct from ourselves we in effect are society. If we all would want this then it would happen but most of the people in the world have flaws and then they would have to recognise their flaws. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing so society will not allow it.
Unfortunately there are anti-science political players trying to make abortion illegal. Blame the bleeding heart republicans who cry about muh fetus.
Because aside from extreme things like downs syndrome, it's hard to get a consensus on what is worth selecting for/against. This is certainly not helped in the US by the fact that its implementation in the past has taken the form of things that boiled down to "you're poor, so we're secretly sterilizing you." Most of the time eugenics is implemented, people try to select based on things like wealth, race, or religion, which it turns out are pretty shitty criteria when it comes to eugenics.
>>killing is wrong
>Agreed. But abortion and preventive devices are not.
Is this bait? Abortion is killing.
Your argument is stronger based on preventive devices.
Of course, you are still an inhuman monster, need to be clear about that...
It is not legal, OP is arguing for a change in laws. It is possible but it is damned intrusive.
>Abortion is eugenics we've fooled bleeding hearts into accepting.
>accepting
Promoting and insisting on.
Breeding of animals like dogs and horses also indicates that there are some pretty severe side effects that come from selecting for traits without really understanding what you're doing. For example, with horses we've bred them to have very light bones, and as a result they basically can't heal broken bones properly because when they break they shatter pretty much beyond repair. Purebred dogs likewise are plagued with a whole host of health issues.
Long story short, aside from severe defects it's unclear if it's worth the risks. Our understanding of genetics has improved by leaps and bounds in just the last generation. Waiting another two or three will give us time to figure out which courses of action are actually a good idea and which ones we should skip due to side effects. A decade is basically meaningless when it comes to human evolution.
A good argument I heard is that by treating genetics as a market, eugenics is the equivalent of central planning and therefore less efficient than a free market system.
The irony is that all the edge-lords that advocate eugenics would never be allowed to reproduce if the system were implemented.
basically this
besides a lack of consensus, we don't really know what genes to preserve. Many genes that seem to have serious costs may have benefits under other contexts(e.g. the gene that causes sickle cell anemia also provides malaria resistance) and narrowing our gene pool may eliminate genes that might turn out to be very useful
any serious eugenics programme would ban literally 95%+ of black people from having babies
It wouldnt be allowed by UN Genocide rules
> Dog breeding evidence suggests no more than four generations even for larger changes.
What do stupid, dirty beasts have to do with PEOPLE? Can you not tell the difference?
> Outside religious "reasoning" there is no sensible explanation why eugenics are banned.
Start f'ing around when in ignorance (and with arrogance) and soon the gene pool is mutated.
Perhaps you haven't noticed all the deformed people: with external physical presentations of their internal brain damage? Body fat is a good example because fat people have FAT BRAINS that are deprived of glucose because they eat mostly GMO fructose...a ketose--alcohol--that must be converted to aldose--glucose). It is a waste and very inefficient to eat crap food.
People need nutrition from vegetables to heal their stunted, malformed-brains. I suppose it's not their fault they're stupid since they had either stupid parents and/or poor diet. Malnourished people cannot make good, sensible decisions, which is why many are in cults (religions); and believe fake-news when an intelligent person would not have been fooled (spaghetti does not grow on trees).
You should see a psychiatrist, your paranoid schizophrenia is showing.
If a parent wants to kill their "kid" then by your definition they are a psychopath, correct? Then by your logic allowing the child to be born passes on the psychopath gene. You are encouraging generations of psychopaths by preventing abortions.
>it's false science
it's not science at all, retard.
It's a policy.
>its republicans who are anti science
>my trigender liberal arts teacher told me so
>tfw 6`4
>tfw 138 IQ
>tfw competitive level Powerlifter
Habsburgs are the best example of how artificial selection works.
they both are. Republicans are just more up front about it, which I'm beginning to realize is less dangerous
yeah free market gene tailoring would be a solid answer for applying genetics. forcing a parent to not have a kid is a violation of human freedom. selling them the ability to have a better kid is a commodity.
the only problem is you get retards like deaf parents making their kids be born deaf too because closer bonds with children are apparently worth more than being a fully functioning human bean
dog breeds too
>The irony is that all the edge-lords that advocate eugenics would never be allowed to reproduce if the system were implemented.
This. I want to live, but damn it I need glasses cause I have -3 dpt
>Hurr why dont we just breed humans like we do cattle?
Humans aren't cattle.
Unironically me except I'm 6'5" and my Stanford Binet IQ is 142
138 is brainlet tier
masterrace checking in:
Im 6'3", 180 lbs, dont need glasses, blond hair blue eyes, 145 IQ. Please allow me to cuck you all so that we can start to build the masterrace
>Implying psychopath is in the genes.
>Im 6'3", 180 lbs, dont need glasses, blond hair blue eyes, 145 IQ
Ah, so close. Your refusal to refuse the metric system has sealed your fate, subhuman.
it's stupid because we don't know enough. costs are too high
>hurr durr i'm a nihilist
kys
>>killing is wrong
>Agreed. But abortion and preventive devices are not.
Abortion is killing retard.
Why bother with eugenics when CRISPR is right around the corner? Far less troublesome.
There's several problems with selective breeding Eugenics.
- Everyone wants their child to be president, but society cannot function filled with nothing but presidents. Society needs "deltas" to function.
- You also lose all the technological and medical advancements that result in treating such disorders, arguably the single biggest motivators of various technological sectors, outside of war. Necessity is the mother of invention. Remove a basic necessity and you stunt innovation.
- Eventually genetic homogeneity becomes a problem. The entire species becomes more vulnerable to the synergistic effect of previously undiagnosed genetic disorders and more vulnerable to virus epidemics.
It's also a moot point, as human genetic engineering is right around the corner. I mean, yes, it has all these same problems and more, but by the time you time you create an institutionalized breeding program and have it around long enough to have a real affect, you'll have genetic engineering of such magnitude that it'll make the whole painful, likely war spawning, effort obsolete.
And of course, this:
en.wikipedia.org
>We are though. 90% of downs syndrom babies are aborted.
Down's syndrome is epigenetic, not inherited. Aborting Down's syndrome children does nothing to cleanse the gene pool - at best it just eases the impact on societal labor resources.
Mind you, a lot of what we know about the human learning process and various advancements in educational system, are thanks to the efforts of teaching the mentally retarded, insomuch as we are able.
Under our new policies, we castrate you metric shitskins the moment you jump the fence.
>Implying I would ever attempt entering a 3rd world country like the US
have you even taken a quick look at other publications by richard lynn?
the guy is a fucking moron
All I'm reading is 'fat and ugly'
>genetic homogeneity
well now that we know we can take countermeasures against it, we use ordinary people as a template and paste superior genes here and there while leaving the bulk untouched which could serve to provide immunity to a global pandemic
Until some genetically selected super-genius asshole decides to make a virus to target the superior gene bits (or some jealous faction that wasn't in on the eugenics program does the same).
>Why aren't we practicing this again?
one of the problem with eugenics has always been the logistics of implementing something like that, so this is not a very clever question.
not to mention thinking intelligence is genetic (as most advocators seem to do) is not science.
intelligence does have a huge genetic component
it isn't, people with iq tend to provide better motivation/opportunities/environment for offspring to get good iq
We are practicing a form of negative eugenics
People who have genetic disorders are allowed to breed and pass their conditions on
A woman gives birth to a non functional human, she has more children each risking the same conditions
We allow people with birth defects, mental illness, extremely low IQ's breed at will
We allow the deaf, the blind, the disabled to continue to pass along their disfunctions, burdening others
People who carry genes for deadly conditions, cancer for example to breed, passing along bad genes
The stupid, the incompetent, defectives are allowed to continue breeding at will
When 2 people of low IQ reproduce, they do not pass along genes for intelligence, they create stupider humans
Now we are creating a sub group of humans who will not be able to reproduce without the assistance of the medical community, Woman has infertility, make has low quality sperm, fertilization in a Petri dish, next generation, more fertility issues and so on and so on
Woman who would have died in childbirth, hips too narrow, gets a ceasarian section, now the genes for narrow hips is passed on and soon becomes a dominant gene, within a few generations a class of woman who must have their issue cut from them
We will fall back to a dark time, then after a population reset, arise again, hopefully
Or
We will develop into separate humanities, one elite, one a basic worker class
Either way it doesn't look too good, I have not even added the probable Spector of machine based life.
Good luck, glad to be old, won't have to watch the impending sharp decline
As a society falls and fails, can those inside see and realize the end?
>check out this low IQ fuck
a genetic component doesn't imply a lack of environmental component
You will accomplish nothing before genetic manipulation and cause societal upheaval. It is literally pointless
I figure eugenics would be a benefit in the short term for genetic issues, and then eventually be an absolute disaster. Constricting the gene pool would probably have unforeseen consequences because even if we can edit the genetic makeup of a human, we aren't omniscient. We don't know which minor mutations are the beginning of a significant advancement later on. Or perhaps some genetic traits that we consider to be the "best" could also have negative consequences like an increased risk for certain diseases or maladies.
I'd still get an abortion if I knew about a genetic issue like downs syndrome or something. But anything that doesn't obviously lower the quality of life isn't worth messing around with
>Constricting the gene pool would probably have unforeseen consequences because even if we can edit the genetic makeup of a human, we aren't omniscient.
I was just about to the bottom of the page when I read your comment. I was thinking the exact same thing. It's incredibly unsafe to bottleneck the genetic pool. We've come a long way in understanding for genetics, but we definitely don't have the whole picture.
A good question posed to some of the people that push this idea is whether or not they'd support an opposing view. Would they support a system in which people deformed or suffering from genetic ails are kept alive and encouraged to reproduce, simply because it contributes more variation to the whole of the genetic pool?