What's Veeky Forums's opinion on eugentics? Is it right or wrong? Make sure to back up your opinions with proof

Should have been done for the benefit of mankind a long time ago

It's bad at first but in the long run it is the best thing that could happen to humanity and would prevent a lot of suffering.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

Genetic engineering is eugenics. Eugenics does not mean preventing people from breeding, that's simply a means of implementing eugenics, just like genetic engineering is. Eugenics is simply any attempt to improve the genetic stock of a population, which should in and of itself be seen as a good thing. The taboo around eugenics stems from its association with preventing miscegenation, but it need not be limited to or even include this. In fact, it's quite paradoxical that the left purports to be against eugenics while supporting abortions, one of the best means of achieving a eugenic society. Most especially, the screening of embryo with down syndrome is nothing other than eugenics, despite not being called as such.

>The idea of a modern project of improving the human population through a statistical understanding ofheredityused to encourage good breeding was originally developed byFrancis Galton
>Galton had read his half-cousinCharles Darwin's theory ofevolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans.
>Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits, though Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory. In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name:eugenics.

Fucking hilarious

What's wrong with any of that?

This is wrong. Simply look up what's healthier purebred dogs or mutts.

The problem is Eugenics is simply a form of breeding which humans have been doing on plants and animals for thousands of years and always with unintended consequences.

Check out Russian Silver Foxes for the most recent example. Scientists domesticated them for the purpose of using them for fur and as a consequence of the breeding process to make them more amiable toward humans caused their fur to become mottled and utterly useless for their fur because apparently the DNA for their fur color is linked to their disposition.

It's simply not worth it. You would have slightly more intelligent humans with massive health problems or people immune to cancer who can't digest food and other crazy ass shit. Again, genetic engineering will one day make Eugenics irrelevant anyway so forget it.

> In fact, it's quite paradoxical that the left purports to be against eugenics while supporting abortions, one of the best means of achieving a eugenic society.
it's not paradoxical at all, you're just focusing on the wrong thing. The abortions are consented to, while most forms of eugenics that have been proposed are not. They are against you forcing people to do X or Y. The left isnt against eugenics at all, you're right with the down syndrome screening and stuff, that is a form of eugenics. They are against FORCED eugenics. i really dont know how that's hard to understand.

Eugenics is such a stupid leftcuck easily debunked """philosophy,""" but since you absolutely want me to think in your place, so be it.
• Eugenics could be defined as the elimination of inferior phenotypes in favor of the superior ones.
• Superior phenotypes are society-defined and may change within a generation.
• No, there are not that many phenotypes which will always be seen as favorable (e.g. Greeks used to prefer small dicks). Therefore, eliminating a phenotype considered inferior at some point in time will prevent its existence at a later point when it will be considered superior.
• Furthermore, reducing biodiversity will make us more vulnerable to some phenotype-specific threats.
• Some phenotypes are the result of two distinct alleles simultaneously activated. This makes the corresponding phenotype not guaranteed to be passed on to the offspring even if both parents exhibit it (Sebright chickens are a good example of it). Aborting half of children for that reason is stupid.

Can you prove that or is it just your opinion?
We already abort just about everyone with Down syndrome so it's at least socially acceptable.

Is it wrong to fire depleted uranium shells into population centers to cause genetic mutations and heritable birth defects?
Is it wrong to implement a controlled breeding program to eliminate heritable defects?
Utilitarianism says both can't be wrong.
Firing DU at people is bad, therefore eugenics is okay.

Darwin thought he was full of shit and waited until Darwin died so he wouldn't get ass-blasted.

same thing happened with modern tomatoes. By breeding for red color and size, they absolutely destroyed the genetic diversity involved in what actually matters, volatile compound production (contributes directly to taste). Modern tomatoes have insanely small genetic variation in these volatile compared to heirloom tomatoes.
wired.com/2012/05/tomato-chemistry/
i dont have access to the actual paper but if any of you do, it's extremely interesting.
“The Chemical Interactions Underlying Tomato Flavor Preferences.” By Denise Tieman, Peter Bliss, Lauren M. McIntyre, Adilia Blandon-Ubeda, Dawn Bies, Asli Z. Odabasi, Gustavo R. Rodrıguez, Esther van der Knaap, Mark G. Taylor, Charles Goulet, Melissa H. Mageroy, Derek J. Snyder, Thomas Colquhoun, Howard Moskowitz, David G. Clark, Charles Sims, Linda Bartoshuk, and Harry J. Klee. Current Biology, Vol. 22 No. 11, 25 May 2012.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Perhaps some people do see it that way, but those I've met from the left (and most people on the right to be honest) consider the very idea of eugenics bad in itself.

Eugenics doesn't require that we reduce drastically genetic variety in humans. Trying to improve the stock of humans so as to get rid of disease or certain behaviors (e.g. sociopathy) is a form of eugenics that would be beneficial to man.

Then can you tell me why jews and east asians generally have a higher iq than the average white by practicing eugentics?

It's a bit weird since Galton's project is normative while Darwin's is descriptive. Trying to make your normative claims consistent with a descriptive science is misguided, while using the principles of evolutionary biology to attack eugenics is equally fallacious. One is about how we ought to manage our societies, the other is about how selective pressure affects species.

They don't practice eugenics.

They both do.

Cool. There are so many examples we could fill volumes. Just to share one, similar to tomatoes is what we did to the Red Delicious apple

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080402194.html

The ashkenazi jews (those often referred to as having higher intelligence) are so inbred that they have a set of normally very rare genetic diseases named after them they occur so frequently in ashkenazi populations. They have even implemented their own screening program to test for these diseases in their children, so high is the risk of them having them.

>They have even implemented their own screening program to test for these diseases in their children, so high is the risk of them having them.
Which is a form of eugenics.

> the left (and most people on the right to be honest) consider the very idea of eugenics bad in itself.
those people don't understand that abortion and even genetic screening of partners for potential genetic risk to progeny is, technically, eugenics. What they really oppose is forced eugenics, where the government or some other entity tells you who you can and cannot have children with; as of right now, it's up to the individual to be screened or to have an abortion.
you really shouldnt put people into false dichotomies though, im willing to bet it's not just "the left" that's extremely uneducated in eugenic processes that occur today. If religious conservatives knew how many of their fellow religion followers actually have aborted down syndrome babies, they would be appalled. Well maybe not

>higher iq
A 5-point difference in IQ is completely irrelevant. Sorry, weeb, but Gooks are not that smart.

You missed the point that their eugenics is the thing that got them into this situation in the first place.

They don't. At most the "eugenics" they practice is simply marrying their own kind, and that's because of culture.

>be asian american
>represent 5% of US population
>represent 30% of MIT undergrads

>washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080402194.html
awesome thanks for the other example. People need to realize selecting for a small number of phenotypes, especially arbitrary phenotypes to the use of the organism (aesthetics), really mess with genetic diversity in other regards.

I had missed that that was the point you were making. You're right that an argument can be made that the inbreeding between Jews could be seen as a form of eugenics, but it is very different in nature than the type of eugenics promoted by screening for heritable diseases. Inbreeding is stupid as in greatly increases the risk of genetic diseases being passed, while screening for such diseases and choosing not to bread with someone carrying the same recessive genes as you does not.

>it's totally not hard work encouraged by culture guys I swear
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
Asians are culturally workaholics.

We don't actually know which is the cause, and in fact it's likely both higher IQ and a culture that values work ethics play a role in the success of Asian Americans. It's also likely both factors are modulated by one another. The important point is neither of us is equipped to fully establish the true cause of this demographic's success, and asserting it's culture and not IQ is no less fallacious than its converse.

Wired: archive.is/QAlD2
WaPo: archive.is/26hMm

NORBOT ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, STAY ON YOUR FUCKING FORUM REEEEEEEEEE

There's a certain thing about stupid people a lot of people wouldn't like to admit. It isn't common to find a stupid person who possibly can't do math or spell etc but is otherwise a decent person. The fact that they're stupid influences almost every facet of their existence. I couldn't define exactly what method we would use to decide who gets to live or die but I do think the world would be a lot better off without certain individuals. I suppose starting with Trump voters would be a good idea

It's necessary, positive eugenics.

I love seeing these mentally ill leftists think of themselves as some arbiter of their peers. Let me clue you in on something buddy: you're a retard that suffers from a personality disorder. How about YOU fuck off instead?

Dumbass

>Oh yeah? well ur dumb!
Nice

user is right, eugenics isnt a science, it's a belief and practice which science assists with when it doesnt infringe upon personal rights. but dismiss his point by instead attacking his character and believing in this mental illness boogeyman.

I would start with autists like you.

you sound as stupid as trump voters user, just on the opposite end

The thing about eugenics, is the same thing about blacks and other minorities n shit, as it pertains to bleeding heart liberals. Not that they're the only people who are against it. But anyone who actually has to be around profoundly idiotic people would not be so hesitant to admit that some people are better off dead. Try riding a greyhound, or go to walmart, or work in fast food, or live in the Midwest. Not only is it obvious they should be shot on sight but they do everything in their power to convince you to do it as soon as possible. People wonder why there are such high crime rates, teen pregnancies, etc., but they should be surprised they aren't higher because most people seriously don't give a fuck. They're parasitic and they know the more they make a mess of themselves the more the gov't is gonna help them out. They have no morals, no ethics, and no drive to do anything other than what provides them instant gratification. They're animals, and worse yet they look down upon people who aren't like them. They'll call you retarded or grandpa or nerd or anything that makes them feel better about being a waste of space. I don't like to be so misanthropic but goddamn people try as hard as they can to be truly awful. They're intent on getting as much handed to them as possible without having to do anything. Sadly, even really intelligent people end up in this group. Even some of the smartest people I know are lazy and good for literally nothing. It is a burden to have to be around these people. As much as it is a burden for them to have to be around me. If people really understood that these people don't want to change, only to make things worse, they would not be so anti-eugenics. You can defend them all you want but the truth is if you were around them for a decent amount of time, they would go out of their way to make you suffer simply for being different.

The proof is trivial and left as an exercise to the reader

Who is this targeted towards.
You started with minorities and then "smart people you met"

>wanting proof
>Veeky Forums
L0Lno fgt pls

Eugenics won't work unless we have impartial god-like rulers. You want proof? Noble families performed a kind of eugenics by only fucking other nobles, the results were bad.

We should select genes for autism because autistics are a master race.

Eugenics would achieve nothing because people are already picking the best partners for themselves. Stupid people don't breed with smart people. Unless you are talking about killing off undesirables which would be impossible.

that wasnt eugenics, just attempts to stem the diffusion of wealth and property due to inheritance

I wonder what we would find if we started going through your genetic background with a fine-toothed comb.

genetics is contextually subjective. even dawkins would agree.

>Is it right or wrong?
It can be right. When your not killing entire groups of people in it's name and otherwise conducting immoral human experiments
>t5forums.com/forum/the-vs-sections/general-discussion/respect-threads/48059-joseph-newton-respect-thread
>Make sure to back up your opinions with proof.
Don't really have any except the fact that evolution's still happening and will continue with or without our help. It couldn't hurt to see what we can do with what we have.
>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982203002902
>aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories

>Again, genetic engineering will one day make Eugenics irrelevant anyway so forget it.
We still have a long ways to with genetic engineering and especially applying it to humans. CRISPR hasn't turned out to be the end all be all and won't immediately solve all of our problems. Eugenics is a simpler solution that already has a precedent underway and is ongoing currently

...

your proof is garbage

"would you want to be born with shitty genetics?"

there, I I have just proven eugenics right by your logic

They have eugenic programs in israel and east asia.

except you're a moron if you don't say yes. any life is better than no life.

But Evolution, Psychology, Statistics, Economics & Archaeological Evidence belongs to Veeky Forums

Genetics proves that different races have different DNA genes.

Evolution & Archaeology proves that Whites are more evolved, Blacks are closer to monkeys.

Psychology proves that Blacks have Lower IQ on Average.

Archaeology proves that Blacks had less advanced Civilization, Culture & Technology than Whites though the history. it's why they got conquered.

Statistics & Economics proves than Whites are more Rich/Wealthy, Healthy & more Educated than Blacks.

Ew. You just shat all over your keyboard and hit the reply button. Gross dude.

Eugenics is needed to advance civilization any further even to survive requires foresight into the consequences of our actions think global warming overpopulation space programs it isn't necessarily immoral either I'd argue it's far more immoral to have children that will be a burden and not advance civilization it's just the next logical course of action I believe it can be achieved morally also it has to be done just require a license for having children

Eugenics of intelligent people have been proven, time and again.

And if eugenics based only on intelligence and nothing else was carried out, people would have a better opinion of it.

However, because of racial ideology and theory, no implementation of eugenics exist without political corruption toward nefarious goals. Carrying out any eugenics is often pointless, always dangerous, and most likely leaves a negative sum impact.

Besides, even if you could have a democratic consensus of the top 5% intelligent males and females breeding for 5 years straight, and limiting everyone else to a "one child policy" our general IQ average would shift. And then what? There's no exact science of what would happen next. If anything, Veeky Forums is proof of that abundant intelligence can still be wasted. No production, talent, and tortured genius that exist as neets and weebs. A certain percentage gets ahead through luck, and motivation isn't necessarily a genetic trait shared by the high IQ.

Can we expect an average societal benefit with in a 20 year time span, for all humanity? What about 100? Will things average back out? If so, then why bother?

What would be the end benefit? Would it be worth the loss of productive freedoms?

I don't want to be told I can't do anything, so that is a stupid criterion for policy.

It's the only way to advance how exactly to do it is a challenge I think it can be done independent of race and many would support it if they understand its necessity I have autism I will never reproduce I understand fully well that eugenics is important and can be achieved morally overall there will be a gain there are studies on national iq and prosperity showing strong evidence of the importance of high national iq

I'm autistic I am totally fine with not reproducing its a detriment to civilization

you guys ever wonder what society will be like if we can ever succseefully genetically engineer superior humans?

Seems like it would lead to an extreme version of bourgeoisie vs proletariat. Those with power and wealth would have exclusive access to modification while the proletariats would become a dying species.

>durr needed to advance
Fuck off. We don't outsources research to the populace.

A high national IQ that was achieved via natural circumstances, not national policy.

It's important to note the motivation of such individuals are also high.

Breeding, is based more on survival and adaptability aspects of a given society. When you remove an aspect like natural mate selection and leave it up to a committee or policy, then people that might not have a chance sexually or motivationally could breed more.

It could also raise intelligence, but lower other things.

Like, what if in 20 years, the US of A loses every Olympic event? What if we withdraw from a more proactive diplomatic international exchange?

What if we get smarter on paper only?

Perhaps instead of using policy to decide who can breed and who can have reproductive freedoms- you introduce incentives to people with high child raising ranks (or some other PR feel good name) that have higher IQs?

Why not, make better policy polically, and put more intelligent people into power to deal with problems and crises? It's not like people don't have solutions to modern day problems, it's that idiots have a fair say. It doesn't take a radical breeding program and a whole generation to address that.

>Veeky Forums is proof of that abundant intelligence can still be wasted.
>I'm happy that there is no stupid Veeky Forums users

mfw

If only you understood how much money ,resources , time is wasted with a low national iq

You might be surprised at the average Veeky Forums users IQ.

>But yes, good thing no one stupid uses Veeky Forums.

My IQ is 152
I spend my money on MTG
I jack off on Veeky Forums all day
While I collect SSI

Tell me how I'm not wasting time, money, and resources.

>everyone in this thread going on about pseudoscience and IQ levels

you guys ever wonder why you aren't successful?

You are an isolated case also you have a lot of potential currently money is spent getting unskilled homeless idiots jobs if all the people not contributing were like you it would be much less of a challenge to make you a productive member of society

Well it depends what issue, I have my list of scapegoats ready.

Every single employed person contributes to society fucktard. The cashier at McDonald's and the janitor at your school are all part of the equation.

Ignoring ethics, eugenics is like a planned economy, it doesn't work
A market is able to make better decisions, and so is natural selection

Of course nobody would like natural selection to become part of daily life, though I think it is rather likely that it will eventually get ahold of us again, in unexpected ways

I've read that less intelligent people have less children. I wonder how this will impact us as time goes on. I was talking to some friends the other day and we came up with some dystopian sci fi premises. Worst case, inherited intelligence sputters out, becoming rarer with each generation until we end up living through Idiocracy IRL. Best case, we turn everything around, investing in education not only here but abroad, bringing down the global birth rate as people become smarter, until it stabilizes at an easily sustainable population.

Entertaining thread, seems /pol/ doesn't know anything about genetics, rhetoric, or philosophy?

>starting with the position of "it's genetics" and then retreating to the position of "it's both, so i'm not wrong" when you get btfo

>what is selection bias?
""""asian-americans"""" represent the offspring of the hardest-working, most motivated asians.
for every "genius" asian-american there's a fucking mong in planting rice a field in china who will amount to fuck all.

>I had missed that that was the point you were making.
because you're retarded. a guy talking about the russian silver foxes made the exact same point earlier and you missed it because you have the attention span of a gnat.

This is a debate thread, retard.

Where are your sources for the
>Whites are more evolved
>Blacks are closer to monkeys

I'm personally a bit scared about the direction that genetic selection is going to have on our gene pool. Intellectuals reproduce less, and morons reproduce more. This is well known. Furthermore, everyone can live a long time now because of medical science. This means people with incurable genetic diseases can live on to reproduce and pass them down

Our medical successes and the ability to provide safety for everyone in society that we've achieved in the past couple thousand years have objectively, statistically, resulted in a lack of pruning branches with bad genes. There is no doubt in this

That being said, eugenics is clearly unethical. But in the longrun we need a way to prune these bad genes. I think CRISPR and related techniques for genetic manipulation, manually removing genetic defects from sperm and eggs, etc. is clearly the answer. There is no good explanation of why eugenics is superior to manual genetic engineering here

tl;dr
Eugenics has a basis in fact, but it is the unethical solution - genetic engineering is the ethical solution

>eugenics

It is our only hope.

If your genes were deemed to be unfit for reproduction by society, would you be okay with it? If you can answer this, then you will have your answer.

...

>muh flynn effect

life of constant torture better than not being aware of pain

Any adult with an IQ under 90 shouldnt be allowed to breed.

That would exclude 50% of black people and 25% of the general population

Eugenicists make me think of those Toadline breeders who intentionally breed deformed dogs together to produce freaks that can barely breathe without external aid, because it "looks cool". That's what happens when you try to reduce a living thing, which is already a fragile collection of millions of tradeoffs, to a single metric. This is what eugenicists dream of for humanity. They want to do what Toadline does but on people.

And?

If your genes were deemed unfit for society, the society should raise those with unfit genes to be self-hating and asexual

Jesus, learn to fucking capitalise properly
Reading this post gave me eye cancer

Saved

That's fine