If it wasn't for eugenics corn would still look like the thing on the left

Human eugenics is actually an obviously desireable project, and it is actually not that difficult, and doesn't require coersion.
Eugenics (possibly via gene editing) will eventually be instituted in an effective manner by some country, and the results will be profound in the long run.

>Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were morons

>Socrates was non-individualist
He hated democracy and thought it would fail. Read a book.

Then who will fund your quality control?

A non-individualist would hate democracy.

A non-individualist would love something like a monarchy ruled by the best king.

You don't need eugenics to become obese, senpai.

>Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were morons
Yes.

There's literally nothing wrong with full blown eugenics except the crying of genetic failures and moralfags. Humanity benefits from it in all regards.

but no one keeps favorites with corn, enjoy having populist brainlets decide the path of eugenics cus muh heritage

I'm not having kids any time soon so I don't care. But the average person is a mouthbreathing retard anyway who would probably be better off with someone telling them what to do.

Anyway, if the chinks do eugenics while the west doesn't, we'll be nigger-tier colonial subjects in 3 generations.

Why don't you put down that electrical device, leave that house with that plumbing and go live in the forest, then? Civilization is only possible through cooperation and a degree of coercion.

He fucking drank Hemlock for "the greater good" of the state...

Seriously... He would slap your individualist ass.

You can blame the original Star Trek series and movies and oh yeah, Hitler for the public dislike of the term.

This desu

99% of the people on this Uzebek pygmy goat enthusiasts forum wouldn’t survive.

Are you literally retarded?

>we are animals
>an animal giving a shit what others do

People who are pro-eugene crabs are cancer and should be cleansed.

t. Plato

...

>I want to die so most other people should too

So there is a very big issue with eugenics. The issue being the prevalence of phenotypes in a population vs. genotypes. You can try to get rid of a trait but there are many traits that such an approach would immediately fail. Many genetic illnesses are the result of a single point mutation or some such and beyond that there are infinitely many little milestones in the development of a child that can cause defects from environmental factors. However let's say we go full GATTACA and try to control for everything through full scale genetic testing for each child, you run into the issue of the repercussions of removing a trait from the population.

I am trying to get rid of a trait that has been deemed "bad". The choice that was determined was that shyness in the population alongside a suite of mental illnesses should be prevented from breeding. Shyness and mental illness are both closely linked to intelligence and the number of theoretical traits that would cascade out are innumerable. Think of it like the fact that selective breeding made our corn bigger and better for our eating, however it lost all sense of flexibility and actual capability to survive in the wild compared to any other plants. It is susceptible to weeds, poor conditions and illnesses.

Speaking of, you can prevent everyone who isn't blond, smart, and at least 6 ft tall but then you might end up with a major problem. Two generations down the line a disease pops up that only 1/6th of the population was susceptible to before. Now that the majority population is this one type they will all start dying and we won't have a genetic basis for a cure like what we are using to crack HIV. A small town in the middle of bumfuck eastern Europe was immune to the black plague. Now HIV uses that same mechanism to give people AIDS, that group is the basis of a bunch of immunity based medicines and if HIV suddenly became transmissible by coughing would be the protection against humanity totally biting the dust.

Me, the bitcoin miner is ready to go

This is not true since liking democracy means giving up your individual necessities for the desire of the majority of the population (at least in theory). Monarchy is a theocratic system witch used religion to justify the ruling of a small group of people over the general population, wich is individualistic.

The thing you eugenics spergs never learn is that nobody knows which traits will or won't be useful. If there is a dramatic change in the environment, you could have just eradicated the only traits that would be helpful. A good human is a human that survives and breeds, not whatever fits your autistic checklist.

daily reminder that only less desirable people complain about eugenics

What if there were to be a dramatic change which could only be survived had we only had an eugenics program of some sort?

Checkmate atheists.

beauty is a good trait

Except that it's completely impractical. No one knows which genes do what, let alone which particular variant of a given gene does what, nor the side effects of that gene (all they code for is individual proteins, which can have many roles throughout the body), on top of which every measurable human trait is affected either a little or a lot by environmental conditions, on TOP of which human generational times are very long compared to, say, corn - and humans are a hell of a lot more difficult to corral than corn, to boot.

So you would have to set up the most powerful, most authoritarian government in history AND make it last longer than any other government in history AND essentially guess who should be matched up with who. And even if you then do succeed (against all probability) in clustering together a handful of positive traits you'll also almost certainly bring along a shitload of genetic diseases too, from all the inbreeding necessary.

Eugenics only makes sense to people with no fucking clue how biology works.

t. brainlet afraid he'd get shanked right of the bat.

Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean you decide who can and cannot reproduce.

youtube.com/watch?v=BXLqDGL1FSg

>retarded christfag doesn't know modern bananas are bio engineered.

>A tab at the top
A tab that squishes the contents when you use it, kek. It's way easier to open it from the other side.

This is so beautifully erotic

>If it wasn't for eugenics corn would still look like the thing on the left.

Looks like somebody modified some genes, there.

Poorly worded and tl;dr, but this user gets it

Hehe you saw the jared video too.

You're confusing Socrates and Plato. Socrates defended democracy hence why he drank the hemlock. Plato later hated democracy because of this, since it was the reason Socrates died, leading him to the creation of The Republic where he states the flaws of democracy and later presents the idea that the best form of government in his opinion is that of the Philosopher King.

In my opinion, in an ideal world the best form of government would be a philosophic democracy, but this however is impossible due to human nature that's encodes into our DNA. There will always be those more enlightened and independent than others that would rather not worry and just follow the majority.

>fixed human nature