Do people have "rights" to reproduce?

Nobody cares about freedom here. Science is about laying the groundwork for dictatorship.

Thinking about this issue logically, it makes sense to go with eugenics, and if we want to evolve as a species that is the right path to take. However, taking such a path could carry with it unexpected consequences that might affect us negativelly(arguably more or less than what we will experience if we don't invest in eugenics and don't find alternative methods). We need to differ between what's best for the species and what's best for our society, and that is a discussion worth having.
I, for one, think that eugenics is the way to go, but not yet. To invest in this kind of politics we need more money and resources, because changing whole cultures takes alot of just that. We need to stop the problem soon, before it becomes too big, but we can't stop it yet through eugenics. We should try to find other options or a balance between eugenics and what we have right now, or we may loose this battle.

>unexpected consequences that might affect us negatively

Like what? Are you concerned about not having enough genetic diversity to be resilient against dieseases? But we've taken care of pathogenic (so non cancer related) diseases. We've eradicated smallpox and polio. 50% of the world is malaria free, even Sri Lanka is malaria free. The next ebola or deadly disease are not gonna strike Martha's Vineyard Massachussetts

If anything, having a massive uneducated boom of poor people population living in unsanitized condition like in Ivory Coast is a major recipe for global disease outbreak, like what we had with ebola a couple years prior considering how interconnected the world are nowadays

Not OP but I'll bite. Why can't eugenics be implemented now?

To OP, I agree that the "bar" for reproduction is incredibly low. Putting an eugenics program in place would be the logical, rational thing to do to curbing the population. The morality is the main thing that would come into question. Who decides who gets to reproduce? Who gets that power? Should anyone have the ability to interfere with someone else's free will to have a family?

>UN sanctioned
Like the white helmets? Lmao

Freedom is a concept by definition, that does not mean that it is not real, because depending on how you define "real", it arguably is.

Is a dream real? It affects you in real life and you certainly have memories of it happening, but you can't touch it or feel it through contact. Freedom is alot like that, you can't touch it or hold it, but you can feel it and it will affect your real life decisions.

From a scientific standpoint "freedom" is just an emotion set in place to guide you into making your own choices so that you will easier pass on your genes. Thought every other human reaction we have is exactly the same, so that doesn't really tell us alot.

From a logic view this whole conversation falls appart, having children does not matter any more since life has no meaning. If we assume that the purpose is to have as many people live as possible that also falls appart since killing someone who would live 70 years for someone who will live for 30 years is not logical. If we say that the purpose of the logic in this situation is to have a total living-time as big as possible, we can conclude with eugenics being impractical since that would be preventing alot of lives which could reach about 40 years + in the worst parts of the world.

The whole concept of freedom falls appart when we try to give it a meaning, because it is by definition meaningless. We can't give a purpose to something which literally means to not have a purpose.

So what I'm saying is that maybe the best would be to just leave freedom be, it is not relevant in this discussion since it's merely a preference. Someone from North Korea could say they feel decently free, but a spoiled kid with rich parents would say he feels robbed of his freedom just from merelly getting a house arrest. What we should rather do instead of waste our time on such a complex concept is to discuss, traditionally, what we should do with this situation, as it would be the most practical way.

>Who decides who gets to reproduce? Who gets that power? Should anyone have the ability to interfere with someone else's free will to have a family?

Free birth controls for all so that people who didn't have enough paperwork to have kids are not salty. Then everyone who didn't pass 50th percentile IQ test are not allowed to have children.

Of course eventually someone gonna have children illegally. In that case should we kill the kids? Of course not. We should treat it as traffic ticket like people running through red lights. Give them some fine and days in court, that's all. I'm advocating for a system of incentives and disincentives for benevolent eugenics, not an iron fisted facist rule to breed supersoldiers

I like your ticket idea, with fines for people who don't adhere to the rules. But giving people condoms when they want to have children won't solve the problem. If somebody wants to have a baby and are told they can't because society thinks they're too stupid, a lot of people will have a problem with that. You're taking away free will based on something they can't control.

> "unexpected consequences that might affect us negativelly(arguably more or less than what we will experience if we don't invest in eugenics and don't find alternative methods)"

I was not arguing neither for or against it, but coming up with a few unexpected consequences that might affect us negatively is easy.

1: Riots.
People don't like change, and realisticly a quick change could tear up society from the inside.

2: Classes
Once we begin dividing society based on genes we will get a class divide between the people being able to breed who will have many benefits in society and those who can't, who might be slowly suffocating, but still will struggle for those benefits as long as they can.

3: Moral
Almost everyone follow some sort of moral code involving the right of children. If we were to use eugenics it would stirr up alot of shit.

I'm not saying we shouldn't go for eugenics, I'm just saying that there's alot of arguments on both sides.

> implying someone with less than 50 IQ would listen to laws and not their primal instincts.
Not saying it would always be the situation, but realisticly stopping these people from having children would almost be impossible.

>Once we begin dividing society based on genes we will get a class divide between the people being able to breed who will have many benefits in society and those who can't, who might be slowly suffocating, but still will struggle for those benefits as long as they can.
There's a good argument that we should incentivise people to not breed, and with regards to the eventual class divide, we should give people who don't breed more benefits in society.

For example, since you're certified too dumb to breed and have promised that you're not gonna drag society even further, you're eligible for certain type of tax credit.

Concrete hypothetical example, a town wants to build a long term infrastructure, like a dam, highway or a bridge that's gonna be finished in 10 years. Since the children of people who can't breed won't enjoy these infrastructure benefit, they should be eligible for tax credit which is fair.

It's just gonna be like red lights at intersection. There's gonna be dumbasses who ran through them and get in traffic accident, sure but the majority of people will follow law

Yeah, I might've been overestimating the problem with that. Realisticly most people will follow the law, I still don't think the law will change most places thought. Even if the official law changes traditions tend to hang around alot longer than those, and people in large groups listen to traditions more often than laws.

Add birth control to food or something and make it so people have to actively invest in a means to give birth rather than people actively investing in birth control. That way the default case is no babby and no more accidental pregnancies.

I think the problems with eugenics are that it would potentially prevent a lot of people from having kids, and the population in developed countries is already stabilized or declining, so it would either require those with good genes to have a fuckton of kids, or we would slowly die out. Another problem is that it would take multiple generations for it to work, and by that time we will most likely have human genetic engineering technology that is vastly superior to an eugenics program.
>For some of the more rare human race such as the Native Americans, we can even treat them as endangered humans and give them free pass on the eugenics certificate.
That is absolutely retarded. Why would you care about preserving races? I'm not a racist who wants to eliminate other races, I simply don't care. Trying to preserve races would decrease the efficiency of the eugenics program, and if the program would actually work, the races whose people were given a free pass would end up being inferior to those whose people were not, which would obviously be a huge problem, as they could not function efficiently in a society of literal superhumans, so they'd turn to crime and drugs, and would be universally despised.

The next Einstein won't be from Sudan with or without economic mobility because the average IQ is 80.

It couldn't possibly be implemented now, since the vast majority of people would oppose it, either because it's pretty authoritarian, or because they would associate the whole idea of a superior human race with Nazism and racism. Also, I'm not sure how scientific it is, like I don't know if we know enough about genetics to be able create a eugenics program that actually makes a significant difference.

>Why would you care about preserving races?
Just as a backup for genetic diversity. It is beneficial for a species resilience to have high genetic diversity.

For example Himalayan Sherpas are genetically predisposed for having more efficient O2 capture in their blood & lungs since they have lived in low O2 environment for a while. Say there's a meteor that comes in and vaporizes 20% of atmospheric oxygen. It would throw monkey wrench in the eugenics program if all the remaining people are diced only from coastal, sea level living cityfolks

>I don't know if we know enough about genetics to be able create a eugenics program that actually makes a significant difference

We have genetically selected better and better race horses, greyhounds, and other desirable traits for pet animals. Eugenics have proven to work on animal sport. There's no reason why we can't bred a desirable trait in humans, intelligence too.

Oh, ok, that's kind of an unrealistic example, because an asteroid that could somehow remove 20% of atmospheric oxygen would wipe us all out anyway, but I get your point. The OP just gave me the impression that races should be preserved on moral grounds, and not on practical ones.

Actively preserving the existing races is against evolution. Otherwise I see no problem with your statements.

suppose studies showed that the average Veeky Forums poster has an IQ of 90?
would you agree to be sterilized?
come on, don't be selfish if you want to save humanity.

I'm going to try to tackle this with a different approach. This was all just a quick first thought, so this may be incredibly stupid, but hear me out.

We'd only be able to enforce this on our own people. If we tried to enforce this on poor nations, the bar would be far too high for them, effectively being genocide. Now before you say "so what", keep in mind the outrage this would cause. The push back would be far too strong to continue on with this without causing the world to just break out into total war. So that leaves having to not enforce this on poor nations.
Now, by giving poor nations a free pass and enforcing eugenics on only the rich, we'd have a population boom concentrated in poor nations, and a population choke on more developed nations. Thus, this would end in a net decrease in the average quality of following generations.

I don't think so, hopefully CRISPR will be advanced enough by the time I want to have kids that they can take out the shitty parts of my genetics. I have a genetic predisposition to blood cancers ie. Leukemia and Lymphoma. I had leukemia and my sister had lymphoma.

We aren't brainlets though and have recognized that Natural selection would have removed us from the gene pool so we don't really want children now.

I would consider adopting someone. I wouldn't want them to be older than a 6 months so they could have a strong relationship with me and my wife. I would take great satisfaction in pulling someone out of a life in the shithole that is America's adoption agencies.

I would and could gladly kill any of you effete amoral nihilistic misanthropic autists to secure the right of my children to follow their biological imperative.
And yes, I chose to reproduce, because unlike you faggots, I understand the importance of the human race (preserving the races with the highest IQs), as we are the only animals to date (and possibly even in the universe) with ANY chance at saving this doomed little rock and lives (not just human) upon it.

Why does this need to be about national origin or race? Intelligence is measurable to a fair degree, just sterilize everyone with a sub-80 IQ, restrict people with IQ's under 110 to having 2 children, and put sliding-scale incentives for people with IQ >120 to have more kids.

Racial debates taint the image of eugenics in the eyes of the public. Making it based on actual measured intelligence would make a eugenics program much more palatable to the public.

nobody has to be sterilized, why not simply ensure that poor people only have 1 kid, while people who demonstrate intelligence are required by law to have 3 kids. poor people will still get to fulfill their evolutionary purpose, and the result of said purpose(their kid) will be better raised and have more resources devoted to it than if they had dozens of children. there isn't a good reason why we shouldn't implement eugenics imo, but fascism, ww2, racial theories etc. have made it taboo.

Get on the right side of history, man.

It is way worse to make people feel bad for a bit than to condemn future generations to ugliness, stupidity and depression.

Kay?

>while people who demonstrate intelligence are required by law to have 3 kids.
what the fuck

>evolution via natural selection
?
that's not how it works, they're separate concepts, natural selection occurs independently, it's also not a matter of "hur dur u iz weak or make mistake n u die".

Let's say the average IQ on the world was 100
Would the world agree to be sterilized?

IQ isn't an accurate measure of intelligence.

The average iq is 100. 20 is a standard dev.

Or at least they try to design the tests that way.

Was not the point, I was pointing out that the average IQ =/= individuals IQ.
I think he knew that, but he made a bad job showing it in that case.

that was the fucking point

>manages to start a eugenics program
>euphoric and elated with his achievement
>liberals take over the government and then use science to deny his children the right to reproduce

This is true. Your right to live, and your right to make decisions for me is a social construct

>in b4 social construct is a spectrum.

So I'll just kill you and not have to listen to your bullshut hypothetical moral framework.

>tfw when you try to explain something to liberals but they have the attention span of a fish

Go away berkley

>amoral
If a moral and an amoral person meet, who is more likely to be killed?

What? How? What does that mean?

Veeky Forums is a better board for this question

OP's idea was issuing eugenic certificates on an individual basis, so the average IQ of posters is irrelevant. He also didn't talk about sterilization, he just said that people would be fined for reproducing if their genes are deemed shit.
Btw, I think most proponents of eugenics would agree not to have kids if their genes were deemed bad.

None of those posters are amoral, but you wouldn't know, since you haven't even read their posts, after all, you tagged every post, even irrelevant ones. It is also funny that you call people amoral, yet you "want to secure the right of your children to follow their biological imperative", as if that was always the moral thing to do. Biology is totally amoral, if raping woman made us better at survival, we would all be raping them, so "following a biological imperative" is not necessarily a moral thing to do. You just invoke morality to hide your true agenda, which is having kids without any regard for their well-being.
Preserving the races with the highest IQ is /pol/ tier thinking. The real goal is breeding the best possible humans withing moral limits for the future, by encouraging the individuals with the most favourable genetics from all races to breed, while discouraging people with bad genetics.

Leftist in general support letting muslims "refugees" into your country, the rest is obvious.

For you

Sex (with a voluntary partner) and reproduction are natural human rights, like eating and shitting. They're not entitlements, tho: You can't demand other humans provide you with food any more than you can demand they provide you with sex, but it would be an egregious overstep of any government's authority to prevent you from eating or fucking (a voluntary partner).

There's no such thing as rights. Rights is literally a social construct. Nature doesn't have rights. Do you think a tiger care about a deer's right to pursue happiness when he sank his teeth onto the deer's throat?

Again, even then I want a society where people are free to fuck whoever they want, and even to reproduce. All I'm proposing is to set a series of incentives and disincentives to promote a betterment of the human gene pool.

For the dummies who didn't pass the gene quality test:
- Give them tax credit for all long term investment. If I don't have kids why do I need to have my taxpayer money spent on long term infrastructures, public schools and decades long term government RnD? Its fair to give the people with unwanted genes tax credit.
- Give them fines, like traffic ticket if they decided to have kids anyway. Just like running past a red light, you're a threat to society
- Encourage the use of birth control, access to abortion, and safe sex education

>saves the thumbnail
>calls others unintelligent
life comes at you fast

>None of those posters are amoral
Morality is subjective, not objective.

>but you wouldn't know, since you haven't even read their posts, after all, you tagged every post, even irrelevant ones
At which point I'd like to add an addendum:
"And to those of you I clicked, to whom my promise does not logically apply. I would advise you take the same stance and anyone who even so much as threatens to take away your or your offsprings rights to reproduce freely, kill them."

>It is also funny that you call people amoral, yet you "want to secure the right of your children to follow their biological imperative", as if that was always the moral thing to do.
Again, morality is subjective and is therefore defined by your understanding of the definition and the application of it from your perspective.
So yes, they are amoral.

>Biology is totally amoral
Wrong, biology is only amoral if you ascribe to that perspective of the concept of morality.
However, as the field of biology also has ethics committees (and laws), it would say that the majority think that biology must have some measure of morality attached.
And as definitions are drawn from the majority, as language is a tool used to communicate concepts effectively.
I can argue that biology does indeed have a certain amount of morality attached to it.

>Part 1

>if raping woman made us better at survival, we would all be raping them
False dichotomy.
I'll add an reductio ad absurdum here:
"If humanity has been partaking in the consumption of some foods that contain bioaccumulative carcinogens, or otherwise toxic chemicals and continues to do so; it must mean that this is beneficial for survival."
Evolution has no sentience or purpose, just mechanism.
For instance, non-beneficial traits can and do pass on, because these traits are either neutral or are of only minor hindrance, allowing the organism to pass on its otherwise successul genetics and these either neutral or minorly unbeneficial traits.

>so "following a biological imperative" is not necessarily a moral thing to do
You no longer have the logical grounds to make this assertion and it can therefore be considered void.

>You just invoke morality to hide your true agenda
You just invoke morality to make a baseless point, as morality is subjective, or it can be drawn from the majority.
The majority who would agree that barring others choice to reproduce is immoral.

>which is having kids without any regard for their well-being.
Please, Nostradamus, look into the future for me and see whether my parenting is toward their well-being or not.
As for now, the state and 'experts' conclude I am doing a good job.

>Preserving the races with the highest IQ is /pol/ tier thinking.
No it isn't, it is scientifically, historically and philosophically provable.
If you wish to have that discussion, that can be the topic should you or another reply.

>The real goal is breeding the best possible humans withing moral limits for the future, by encouraging the individuals with the most favourable genetics from all races to breed, while discouraging people with bad genetics.
You just keep envoking humanitarian eugenics and morality to hide your true agenda.
See, we can all make baseless claims.

>Part 2, End

Please leave

>>if raping woman made us better at survival, ...
I misunderstood the meaning of biological imperative, because English is not my native language, just ignore that point.

>>None of those posters are amoral
>Morality is subjective, not objective.
>Wrong, biology is ...
It can be objectively decided if someone is amoral or not, even if morality itself is subjective, because being amoral means not considering morality, and not being outright evil, so one is not amoral if they seem to follow some system of moral rules. And most posters did seem to take some system of moral rules into account when considering the question of eugenics.
Biology is amoral because it is not a sentient entity capable of moral reasoning, but some mindless natural process.

>You just invoke morality to make a baseless point, as morality is subjective, or it can be drawn from the majority.
>The majority who would agree that barring others choice to reproduce is immoral.
It seemed to me that you are making an argument on moral grounds, while assuming the existence of objective morality, since you said "the right" of your children. In this context, it seemed like you aren't talking about rights given by law, but rights given by something universal, like a universal system of ethics or something. Also, if you don't count people who are really religious, most people would agree that not letting people reproduce is sometimes justified, like if the kid has a high likelihood of inheriting a genetic disease that causes unbelievable suffering (think something progeria or down's syndrome). So it's really about where we draw the line.

>Please, Nostradamus, look into the future for me and see whether my parenting is toward their well-being or not.
Obviously I wasn't talking about your parenting ability, but your genes. You most likely don't have bad genes either, but it's your "I have a right to reproduce, even if my genes turn out to be trash" mentality I don't like.

What's with all these bad 20th century ideas popping up again and pretending to be new? Eugenics was already argued and lost.

Eugenics got bad rep because of the Nazis, just like how Swastika which is originally a hindi symbol for peace got its reputation forever tarnished.

Not all Nazi ideas are bad.

>I think most proponents of eugenics would agree not to have kids if their genes were deemed bad.
So if some leftist ""scientist"" deemed their genes bad they'd just easily assent and go quietly into the night? I don't see it.

>treat native americans differently
>not racist
the real solution you're proposing is a global fecundity limit

anyway if there was no poverty there would be no overpopulation (after a spell)

I say bring on the designer babies, stop giving rights to IVF embryos (sorry repubs), ration them 2 per couple and any other pregnancy must be aborted by (global) law.

Eugenics happened way before the Nazis in America and greatly outlived them.

muh nazis

Eugenics is bad because it severely decreases genetic diversity. If you think human eugenics can out pace the speed of bacteria adaptation you are a lost cause. one bad flu/cold comes along and we are all donezo.

I think I will print out such a certificate and mail it as a love letter.

There is nothing wrong with eugenics.

Considering IQ has to have a mean of 100 that image makes no sense.

Low IQ people are reproducing unchecked and swamping the world thanks to foreign aid and welfare which go against natural selection.

Either we let people in the third world starve (Evil) or we feed them but impose draconian parenting licenses to allow only the most intelligent and responsible humans to breed. (Mature)

This is literally the only way we will save mankind and reach the stars. Democracy and civilization cannot survive in a sub-90 average IQ environment.

It's an international comparison, the German 100 point mean is taken as a baseline.

Right?
Sure.
Qualification?
That is another story.

However consider the following.
Without idiots how would you know what the smart thing to do is?
All you have then is you vs time and space.
What do you do then?
Advance technology?
Become a God?
Give birth to a minute race of similar entities and watch them fumble about in their pursuit of what they think is important? lol

What evil is non interfering nature? Just let them find their food by themselves.

Take your meds and fuck off

No-one's going quietly into the night, it's not like the species dies out or something. Also, in a realistic eugenics program, the people would have the right to see their genetic results and have it reviewed by other scientists, and they could win big money in court cases if they were mistreated. And a realistic eugenics program wouldn't be a yes or no thing, people would be encouraged to reproduce or discouraged from reproducing depending on some score determined based on their genetics, because intelligence is not the only important thing for a better human race.

Every time IQ comes up, some moron has to post that bullshit argument. They probably set one country's 100 as the baseline and used that for comparison, which is still a valid way of doing it.

that sounds like a very ineffective eugenics program tbqh. if you don't make them listen. shaniqua is not going to give a fuck if some geek betas in lab coats tell her not to reproduce. and jaleel is not going to be keen on paying taxes to support schools for the children of the "gifted" but not for his own.

Eugenics+Socialism=Holocaust

And what of low-IQ whites and high-IQ blacks?

CRISPR is right around the corner, so eugenics is a slow and inefficient way to go about things at this point. Plus, you know, enforcing it is problematic, at best.

Not that CRISPR isn't problematic, but at least people will be clamoring to buy it, rather than protesting their treatment or the fact that they can't marry their favorite nigger.

>The next Einstein won't be born in Liberia. Even if a person with the same DNA and genetic makeup of Einstein was born in Liberia today, he won't make it anywhere due to the education and social mobility there is so poor.
...and that, way to kill your own proposal user.

Though reading in more detail, what you are proposing is not eugenics, so much as genocide of all poor people.

So, despite your claim, you're more a /pol/kin than most of /pol/, who at least generally has no problem keeping destitute aryans alive.

They can take an IQ test and a parenting class with a final exam to get their parenting license just like anybody else.

That's how it should be anyway.
Only high IQ taxpayers not on welfare and military veterans should be allowed to vote and/or have children.

There will still be people on welfare you know... It's not like poor people never existed in Europe.

No problem with that as long as they can't vote. Voting is a privilege to be earned, not a right to be squandered.

Allowing the welfare addicted masses to vote is like putting a cat to guard a pot of cream. Democracy dies when parasitic people realize they can vote themselves free stuff from the Treasury.

>democracy
>only some people can vote

>democracy
>people under 18 and criminals in prison can't vote

Universal suffrage is a modern experiment.

Britain introduced universal male suffrage in 1912. Most of Europe did so after WW1. The United States only achieved universal suffrage in 1965.

When the US Constitution was first drafted it only had property-owning white males in mind. In practice this applied to less than a quarter of the population.

The founding fathers did not create the Constitution with universal suffrage in mind. Jefferson in particular was concerned with democracy turning into mob rule.

Fact is, democracy has been limited democracy for most of the time it hs existed. Modern democracy is a perversion of the original.

Even Aristotle warned that demagoguery (populism) was the corrupted form of democracy, if the lowest uneducated rung of society was allowed to vote and be misled by pandering politicians.

Eugenics would genocide blacks since the majority of blacks are feral retards. The few smart blacks however would be grateful to finally be free of these feral retards once and for all though.

>I'm not a /pol/kin and not racist at all

*hit [return] *

>sub-90 average IQ environment.
Well, you are in luck

No group is sub 90 given optimal conditions/environment.

>inb4 immigrant selection

yeah right, the moms too, so they don't "regress to the mean"
but somehow no selection took place for other whites, asians, but the SAME exact selection took place for caribbean blacks and africans
Wait, you mean you won't have the few remaining smart blacks have 5 kids so they can compensate? no reason not to do that in your scenario

well I sure was wrong

concerning eugenics, nurture is as important as nature so we can only really judge peoples' genes as better or worse assuming they are all raised the same way

what if there are traits that are exclusive to one another, like for example by selecting for genes that improve hearing you induce lactose intolerance?

we would have to set a universal standard for what traits are ideal, even then we might not have the genes to fit all the aspects of the mold well and we'd have to wait for a while until we develop them (if we ever do)

Thinly veiled incest poster?

poverty is primarily a consequence of instability and communism; not population.

the entire point of building and innovating is to have less to do; when instability fucks everything up, you gotta start from scratch. when every cop is corrupt, and the government has all the power, nobody will invest; smart people will run.

you cant compare the situation in liberia to usa, simply because one country is stable and the other isnt. fix the political system, empower the people with freedom and democracy, and wealth will develop quickly.

the world should allow people to be useless braindead fuckers, that do nothing but smoke pot and play vidya all day. achieve stability and the rule of law, stop suppressing capitalism, and liberia will become wealthy. its as simple as that.

lefties cant handle that though. they refuse to see capitalism and environmentalism as compatible. however all the evidence suggests otherwise. more forestry is maintained by loggers than by bob brown. more endangered species are sustained by hunters than zoos. the cleanest rivers and air comes from cost-cutting efficiency, not over-regulation. dont fall into this trap of thinking that the world and humans are separate. we have every right to be here, and every right to mold this planet as we see fit. we can coexist without genociding our lay-abouts.

it's simple math. when you refuse to allow a profitable industry to exist, you must conclude that government should step in; as governments must step in to prop up socially vital but unprofitable industries. governments always fuck everything up, and by centralising power within them we create high-risk, high-instability environments. on the other hand, the market is de-centralised, rewards efficiency, and has long-term interest in sustainability. governments only plan to the next election; companies plan for upwards of decades, and some hundreds of years.

infinite growth is obviously impossible; but you cannot solve big problems with a small mind. even the lowest iq, most retarded kids can become a labourer or a concrete; and with developing industry and a few generations, high iq leaders will appear by necessity and self-selection by smart successful people. however, with constant instability and no development, there is no genetic imperative to improve; the smart or successful simply leave the country, and the genetic stock continues to flat-line.

there is a natural equilibrium between humans and our environment, but we are nowhere close to it.

that said, i could maybe see us killing all the rapists and pedos. muslim inbreeding would go away within one generation, which would be nice.

>nobody has to be sterilized, why not simply ensure that poor people only have 1 kid
>poor people are subhuman, guise :^)
??

do eugenics with people who agree to be a part of it, at the top or whatever, have them have 10 kids, use CRISPR, engineer away

but people should have as many kids as they like, because you'd HAVE to kill babies and people otherwise (this is how you make sure poor people have 1 kid) - statistically speaking members of YOUR family too

who is going to kill all these babies and people - the military? Doubtful, since soldiers aren't the elite that would have right to kids

you are exactly like the people who think the solution to global warming is to kill people

those aren't solutions, those are the creation of even bigger problems

also the question about IQ of poor people (not that it will be the only metric in a real eugenics program as far as brains are concerned) isn't even settled as suggests

also, there might be technical issues

Also, also, libertad o muerte

>why not simply ensure that poor people only have 1 kid

cause it doesnt work. they just kill the girls. look at china.

>Let's say the average IQ on the world was 100

>No group is sub 90 given optimal conditions/environment.

the inbred pakis get pretty close tho. fgm and uncle-rape have to go

>>No group is sub 90 given optimal conditions/environment.
>the inbred pakis get pretty close tho. fgm and uncle-rape have to go
Their verbal is depressed by the fact their immigrants.

So they don't get close to 90 in that chart.

>inbred
>pakis

>not an iron fisted facist rule to breed supersoldiers
Get a load of this guy.
Then why even have eugenics, then?

>not a hedonistic dicktatorship breeding the thiccest women and guys with multiple huge cocks