Why are people uncomfortable about acknowledging the fact that people with genetic disorders should not reproduce...

you're forgetting the fact that any of them aren't 100% heritable, see cancer that runs in families for example they aren't passable all the time

This

OP, you are inventing a moral imperative to commit genocide through eugenics and then asking why it makes people feel uncomfortable. You've provided no metrics by which we could measure improvement. Also, you are conflating virtue with genetic superiority for some reason. Either that or you're implying that promoting a virtuous culture through eugenics will improve the world which is simplistic because culture is only one facet of a functional society and a bit naive since culture and genes are not necessarily linked.

Either I'm misunderstanding you or I am simply 2 intleginet for this board.

>Why are people uncomfortable about acknowledging the fact that people with genetic disorders should not reproduce?
They aren't. Even normies will agree tards shouldn't be fucking. The only people uncomfortable with it are the rich upper-class who are harmed more than benefited by making society better on average.

Simple solution to all the "ethical concerns bullshit"; make it voluntary, but incentivize the people you don't want breeding to do so.

Welfare and gibsmedats in exchange for chemical castration.
Even more welfare and gibsmedats for chemical castration if you're proven to have inheritable disease or are otherwise dysgenic.
Tax breaks per child for families of above a certain income.

Thus, the lazy and selfish will naturally gravitate to getting more handouts, will continue to fuck like animals like they already do, but won't have any children from it.
Beyond the fact that tax breaks don't even matter for poorfags in the first place, limiting these to families of a certain income simultaneously disincentivizes poor families from having lots of kids, while at the same time incentivizes middle class and rich families to pop kids out like they're on a farm.

And the best part is; it's entirely ethical and voluntary; the poorfags castrate themselves willingly for gibsmedats, and they're not punished for having lots of kids, but the people you actually want breeding are rewarded for doing so.
Sure, it'll probably cost a lot at first, but given a few generations with no new children growing up in poor areas (which accounts for poorfaggotry being caused by either upbringing and/or genetic traits), and with lots of children growing up in those families which managed to become successful (again, accounting for either nature and/or nurture, regardless of what it actually is), you'll most likely see improvement within only a few decades.

Give me a few reasons as to why this is a bad idea, besides the obvious "you'll never get it past the red tape"

>"genocide"
Tards and downies aren't a "race" or "people" you absolute mong; literally no one but Tumblr thinks they're in any way equal to actual people.
Instead of thinking of how "unethical" this is to the currently living potatoes, think of all the countless future almost!humans you're damning to sub-human lives because you didn't stop their tard ancestors from getting it on.

"Tards" and "Downies" are only one category of person that OP wants sterilized which already seems excessive as having that kind of cognitive deficit already damns you to a sexless life.

Aren't most of these people born with genetic mutations from non-impaired people? The parents are usually the healthy ones with some obscure mutation they could never have known about. You'd likely have to institute some sort of mandatory gene sequencing to get any accurate information on it.

Also, you are falsely accusing these "potatoes" of feeling pain for a life they have no ability to feel. They have no frame of reference. How could they miss something they never knew? I can't crave steak if I've never eaten it before.

>which already seems excessive as having that kind of cognitive deficit already damns you to a sexless life.
You would think so, but not really.

>Aren't most of these people born with genetic mutations from non-impaired people?
That would imply the non-impaired parents need to be sterilized as well; you'll often have families which have disabled children having multiple children (in an effort to "try again"); this either results in more disabled children which might breed against all odds, or it can result in functional (or partially-disabled) children that can still pass on the mutations.

>Also, you are falsely accusing these "potatoes" of feeling pain for a life they have no ability to feel. They have no frame of reference. How could they miss something they never knew? I can't crave steak if I've never eaten it before.
Is it moral to have an under-class of people that don't care that they're an underclass? Is it moral to have slaves that are too stupid to not care that they're slaves?

It is a moral imperative for humanity to tend towards greater intelligence, towards greater consciousness, regardless of how "okay" a barely sapient individual might be with how they are.

> W-why won't women have sex with me? I'm genetically superior. F-fucking Chads.

>what makes you thinks neuroses are genetic?
>what makes you think those are genetic either?
Certain genes are linked to this behavior, depression for instance is heavily linked to genetic predisposition

While a gene don´t give you a personality per se, it will make more likely to your brain release certain hormones, thus giving you a certain personality over time.

If you kill people with brains that shoot a certain amount of dopamine, it will be a matter of time until you have a society where dopamine is almost non existent and everyone has depression.

Saying personality comes exclusively from behavior is like saying schizophrenia comes as well

The truth is that society won´t accept eugenics anymore, and the future relies on genetic engineering to survive

the movie idiocracy it is totally possible user

What if the people asking for gibsmedats already have kids?

An unfortunate possibility, but one that can't really be avoided.
At the very least they'll stop having more kids.

There's also the possibility of them having kids first, and then getting the gibsmedats and sterilization, but that can possibly be circumvented by saying "you can't have any kids in order to be valid for the gibsmedats"
In time, this would incentivize poorfag teens to practice safe sex and not have kids early in order to get their gibsmedats when they become adults, as well as incentivizing them to get abortions if they do fuck up.

>encourage men to reproduce with the more virtual females
That's we're trying to do. Especially the people on /a/ and /d/

>virtual females instead of sluts and sassy bitches
3DPD OP, my waifu and I totally agree

highly intelligent people are stasticiall more likely to have mental illnesses
so are you okay with overall less highly intelligent people reproducing?

If only... This variant might get even me supporting a welfare system.

it's not my life so I really don't care

That's pretty unethical, worse than a chad or whatever

Lots of average and poor people have lots of mental illness too though comparatively as well. It's more that mental illnesses aren't being diagnosed or noticed well enough.

Where's the thing is that it fucking SUCKS seeing your kid inherit your mental/physical bullshit that you deal with. Imagine having a kid with Sickle Cell and the attacks they may have to deal with on top of the retrains on who you can have kids with without getting a kid that inherits your sickle cell.

You know what sucks? Getting a Sickle Cell attack. You want to know what's worse? Getting a big painful erection during the attack so imagine getting an attack with a massive boner during that period that just won't stop. So getting a kid with a schizophrenic attack during highschool at their most vulnerable moments as bad (mental illnesses are like mutants in Marvel, the gene activates at around adolescence and early adulthood but young ages it can pop up like at 4). Imagine being a kid and during your massive bipolar manic swing at age 5 you jump on your mom wanting to /ss/ her.

If you and your family have a history of genetic illnesses make sure you do the proper measures to reduce/eliminate passing that stuff on (or adopt a foster kid).

Not Eugenics but groups like Jews, Iceland and West Africa (surprisingly a lot do that and even religious figures support it) do use particular services to prevent issues of certain conditions effecting kids.

>Why are people uncomfortable about acknowledging the fact that people with genetic disorders should not reproduce?
>should not
>fact

Holy shit is your critical thinking atrocious.
Do you even know what the difference between value statements and facts are?

dumb ass kids will get sterilization prizes too.

1) define genetic disorders that need to be eliminated
2) determine the difference between a genetic cause vs an epigenetic cause for every disorder in everyone
3) determine if the genetic disorder is always relevant, if it's sex-limited, and in fact varies between beneficial and harmful depending on who was it

The reason this stuff makes people uncomfortable is just the idea is dumb and people get weirded out and wonder why people are preoccupied with genetics; like you clearly don't understand what you're talking about, and it just seems motivated by prejudices and smallmindedness

I don't think you're prejudice, though. Just maybe kinda stupid

>more virtuous males
M'lady

China is going to edit their DNA and turn off all those diseases

>Encourage women to reproduce with the more virtuous males instead of criminals, sociopaths, and stereotypically alpha chads (and in general the dark triad they love so much)
>Encourage men to reproduce with the more virtual females instead of sluts and sassy bitches

I'm sorry op but isn't this EXACTLY what multiple religions and cultures tried to do for thousands of years and failed spectacularly at it?

Truth be told your line of thinking may in fact push for even worse behavior from humanity because history has shown such philosophy has been turned into dogma and utilized to pull off some pretty heinous acts.

Here's the solution to everything

>pay people $1000 to voluntarily get their tubes tied
....
>that's it.

Would solve a huge number of problems in society. Almost as good as de leading gas imo - that's always gonna be number 1 tho

>I'm sorry op but isn't this EXACTLY what multiple religions and cultures tried to do for thousands of years and failed spectacularly at it?
idk, they've been pretty successful up until modernity ruined everything.

Body autonomy.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Asia

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

Yes, they were so successful, it's all modernization's fault...

>literally over two millennia of history compared to three hundred
>conflict means a society is unsuccessful
>the modern era is better because we don't call our wars "wars"
Literally the only good thing modernity has going for it is technology, medicine, and science; everything else has regressed universally.

God bless CRISPER

>Why are people uncomfortable about acknowledging the fact that people with genetic disorders should not reproduce? That people with neuroses harmful to society as a whole should not reproduce? That downright psychopaths and bullies should not reproduce?

Someone, somewhere, is going to be in charge of a committee that decides what counts as a genetic disorder, what counts as neurosis, and who, or what, behavior is psychopathic. That is incredible power, and it's a power that no human being, or fallible man made product, can be trusted with.

>That is incredible power, and it's a power that no human being, or fallible man made product, can be trusted with.
Why not, we've trusted people with more power before.
Like it or not, people have always have the power to decide who lives and who dies, and people always will have that power.
We've only just recently managed to fool ourselves into thinking that everyone deserves to live.

>Encourage men to reproduce with the more virtual females instead of sluts and sassy bitches

2d is love 3d is hell

>We've only just recently managed to fool ourselves into thinking that everyone deserves to live.

Sounds like you have very specific people in mind that you want to die.

Who doesn't? I'm sure even you have that one person in mind, who's death would be an absolute net benefit to humanity as a whole.

Not him but no because I dont have absolute insight about other people lives and thoughts to make such a decision

>Who doesn't? I'm sure even you have that one person in mind, who's death would be an absolute net benefit to humanity as a whole.

Coming up with people that you think the world would be better off without is easy. The insight to know whether or not that is actually the case is impossible, and I could not trust myself to be judge, jury, and executioner.

>Literally the only good thing modernity has going for it is technology, medicine, and science; everything else has regressed universally.
Do you honestly have any historical or anthropological reason to believe that previous cultures and societies were more virtuous (which is also cultural) or ethical? Did they have more grand philosophy? What was so great about the days of yor that OP wishes were a factor in today.

>judge, jury, and executioner
This is why Judge Dredd is the best comic.

The decision must be made regardless, with or without omniscience. Waiting for perfect knowledge induces only paralysis.

Ultimately, we cannot "know" if anything actually is 100% absolutely without fail is true; we have only our senses and the conclusions we have drawn from a lifetime and analysis.
Just because you lack faith in your capacity for judgement, doesn't mean everyone does.

It's really late right now, so I'm not going to get too into this, but the rise of individualism (in the democratic sense) has been the single most disastrous even in human history. The politics of the enlightenment and everything following it have destroyed any morality that human civilization may have had.
In destroying hierarchy, we have only made everyone equally wretched. A competition of all against all, rather than cooperation of superiors and inferiors.

>It's really late right now, so I'm not going to get too into this, but the rise of individualism (in the democratic sense) has been the single most disastrous even in human history. The politics of the enlightenment and everything following it have destroyed any morality that human civilization may have had.
>In destroying hierarchy, we have only made everyone equally wretched. A competition of all against all, rather than cooperation of superiors and inferiors.

Effective cooperation only exists in the form of enlightened self-interest - the realization that helping others helps yourself.

>Effective cooperation only exists in the form of enlightened self-interest - the realization that helping others helps yourself.
You mean efficient cooperation; and I won't deny it; it is quiet efficient.
It's still not the right way to go; like evolution, selfish individualism has no long term teleos. There is no force to guide it along to better states of society; it only arrives there by luck or environmental pressure, the latter of which may never exist for what we determine to be "desirable"

Rather than helping others because it helps you, man ought serve because it is his duty, and in return, those he serves are obligated to protect and uplift him.
Man is inherently hierarchical, and the facsimile of democracy only serves to mask true power.

You cannot achieve idealism by denying what we are and trying to smash any persons that know the nature of man intuitively and choose embrace it. The result is weakness, which will be destroyed by those who embrace naked power.

"enlightened self-interest" is not the true nature of man, nor has it ever been. For millennia upon millennia humanity lived under natural, hierarchical rule, and you want me to believe that we've only just discovered our true, fundamental nature in the last 300 years?

That's not what I'm addressing. The ideal society is realized by taking each human for what they are, and impressing civilization and decency upon them. You can't create a civilization that lasts by denying what a human is, but instead by taking a good, hard look at what a human is and impressing upon each other the courses of action that will have the best results. "You have to be man before you can be a gentleman."

>cancer
>runs in families
user, I...

>That downright psychopaths and bullies should not reproduce?
You need to start at the top. People should be encouraged to BE better, not turn over responsibility to the next generation.

I guess one argument (One that i dont know the validity of) is that welfare is supposed to be a leverage upon which one has the potential to leave ones bad situation with.

because people think reproduction is a right when in reality its a privilege

thank you, /pol/

I'll have to disagree again; what each man is, is nit necessarily conducive to civility and decency. Men are fluid and malleable, they can be changed, they can be improved. Rather than looking at what each man is, you must instead look at what each man can be at his core, and then deciding whether or not he can remain as is.

Question to the eugenics people:

Who will do all the dirty work when everyone is intelligent and educated? How will the economy work where everyone is too intelligent to buy the latest iPhone?

>Who will do all the dirty work when everyone is intelligent and educated?
Presumably either full automation, or sufficiently highly paid "dirty work" positions supplemented with partial automation, depending on the job in question.
Example: Farming is easy, but something like plumbing or other "dirty trades" might not be; regardless, there'll almost certainly still be people who like working with their hands, even being highly educated ubermensch.

>How will the economy work where everyone is too intelligent to buy the latest iPhone?
The economy switches from focusing on consumerist drivel to expanding actually useful industries.

>makes thread complaining that people with sub optimal genes should not reproduce
>lists alpha chads as people who should not reproduce
>alpha chads should not reproduce
Annnnd like that you went from a eugenicfag to to someone who just belongs on , I just WONDER who you think should reproduce, perhaps those really good "nice guys" who women just don't understand because they just CAN'T stop hopping on those bad boys? Also, I think there is a citation needed on other species applying "artificial selection," Are you saying the reason female Lions reproduce with the head male Lion is because there is an enforced system whereas all the beta Lions are euthanized? This is ridiculous, Natural Selection is sufficent enough, people who have to freedom to mate with others they choose will be naturally inclined to be attracted to those with more desirable traits. "Bad boys", "Slut Culture", and Jimmy the Retard marrying his half-sister aren't going to prevent those who are stronger, smarter, and kinder from taking part in breeding.

Also, shitty personalities and neuroses aren't chronic, being an asshole doesn't mean there are "asshole genes.'' You are preventing 0 bullies and psychopaths by forcing women to breed with "nice guys." Instead, take the money you need to put into law enforcement to ensure undesirables don't fuck and instead put it into shelters and programs to prevent abuse of children and adults to turn into psychological problems later in life

>Instead, take the money you need to put into law enforcement to ensure undesirables don't fuck and instead put it into shelters and programs to prevent abuse of children and adults to turn into psychological problems later in life
If you prevent undesirables from fucking and breeding, those abused children would have never been born in the first place.
Thus, regardless if assholishness is purely nature or purely nurture or somewhere inbetween, it will still be solved.

Once you start restricting people who have genetic diseases from birthing children then you also have to consider questions like what age range is best for a pregnancy. I believe that line of thinking only really leads to eugenics. Eugenics is subsequently followed by Totalitarianism.

There should an incentive for people who have good genes and healthy bodies to reproduce. Also to reward the act of properly raising a child. If there was something in place created by us to promote the wellbeing of future generations it would create a much better future than enabling the government to dictate who can have children.

>civility and decency.
These are not requirements for the evolutionary demand to reproduce. If you cannot satisfy these, everything else becomes irrelevant.

>If you prevent undesirables from fucking and breeding, those abused children would have never been born in the first place.
>Thus, regardless if assholishness is purely nature or purely nurture or somewhere inbetween, it will still be solved.

You fundamentally do not understand power and competition. Women want power and strength because it is the best avenue for ensuring that she receives care and that her offspring will be provided for. This isn't an idea that is found somewhere up the list of Maxwell's Heirarchy of Needs, but far at the bottom of basic human impulses that drive survival from our monkey-brained past. They are buried deep, but they don't go away. Girls don't like nice guys because being a nice guy looks like compliance born from being too weak to impose your own, individual will.

Hahaha I have schizophrenia and already 2 kids get fucked OP

>Maxwell's Heirarchy of Needs

Friggin' hell, I meant Manslow's Heirarchy.

If you can provide citations for any of that please do
>the movie idiocracy it is totally possible user
Never mind, your eugenics plan means you should have committed suicide by now

Because when retards like OP are put in charge of "making the world a better place" they go about it by forcibly sterilizing entire populations of people they don't like. These are the people who are so dumb they think "feeble-minded" is a medical diagnosis; people like OP who think sterilizing people with "neuroses" will somehow help anything.

These mad scientists commit atrocities that to this day force governments to apologize to the families of victims. They generate historical precedents so horrible, so dehumanizing they lead people to violently reject the very notion of genetics in order to protect themselves from you people. Remember when the Nazis cited American eugenics programs as inspiration? That was pretty much the end of your "field".

Good riddance. If there's one thing we don't need it's retards using science as justification for atrocities committed upon people they don't like.

>God isn't real Morty
>*BUURRRP*
>We're just tiny specks floating in the universe >*URRRP*
>We're insignificant, Morty, humans are just bags of meat and bone
>Life is meaningless Morty
>Get schwifty

Why are they trying so hard to push the idea that life is meaningless?
Seems to me like the writers watched Cosmos and completely misunderstood Carl Sagan's message about humanity being tiny specks of dust in the Universe.

This is honestly no better than lunatics that life is meaningless because the end of the world is nearing.

have you ever looked at pure breed dogs? Breeding for the best traits just results in breeding for the traits some dumb ass thinks are the best traits, resulting in some weird ass abomination that can't survive on its own anymore.

but no seriously humans are too complicated for eugenics to be taken seriously.

we'll just modify DNA and have super babies. that's way cooler.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_Bastard
>this is what eugenics fags do when they think nobody's looking

Having fun roleplaying as Hitler, OP? You're just an edgy /pol/fag who got btfo one too many times and decided to turn to science to add "weight" to your arguments. Mercifully, the rest of the world has wised up to your antics.

Whether they should reproduce or not is a political issue not a scientific one. Deciding policy or how people live/what they believe is politics not science. Eugenics sucks and will be replaced with gene therapy soon enough. And do you really think a politician should decide who reproduces and who doesn't? When was the last time you saw a politician act in the common interest of man?

This is a straw man. Dogs are bred for a reduction of traits (resulting in uniform appearance and increasing the occurrence of genetic disease), not for genetic fitness. This is why show dog pedigrees are genetically unfit.
Working dogs, on the other hand, are breed for only for performance, and so have the genetically unfit population removed with a maintained genetic diversity. As a result, they have superior performance in the areas selected for without increased rates of genetic disease.

uhhh its just like, post post modernism, man