Negative Eugenics

If you could conduct a programme of negative eugenics on a given population, on what criteria would you define the ‘undesirables?’

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=at_jL-yWjY8
telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/13/extreme-horse-breeding-leaves-animals-looking-like-cartoons/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Indeed, a very scientific question

Flat earthers, moon landing deniers, 9/11 truthers, people who confuse "loose" and "lose".

its about negative eugenics, nigger

height, face, frame

/pol/-behavior

Realistically is there enough /pol/ users to have a successful negative eugenics program specifically selecting for them?

Diabetes.

Positives.

IQ under 90 at adulthood.

I would force women to abort if they were going to birth a child with a significant genetic disorder like downs for example. People currently alive with certain genetic disorders would be rounded up, sterilized and put on welfare until they die. Illegal births would have the child sterilized and the parents wages garnished to take care of the child in a govt facility. Their reproduction license would be revoked and they would be sterilized. No other conditions would be considered undesirable, just legit developmental disorders.

being black, jewish or left-leaning.

>t. wants to genocide niggers

Create a government program where if you voluntarily underwent some method of permanent birth control (nothing extreme, vasectomy or tubal ligation), you would receive a government stipend for life of some reasonable, yet attractive sum. Offer the ability to buy back your reproductive rights for a prohibitively high cost.
You'd basically have the most short sighted high risk people breaking their fucking necks to get some free gubmint munny AND be able to fuck without a rubber! And in the event some of them end up growing a brain (or being socially valuable enough to have a shitload of money at their disposal) they can reverse their decision and end slip back into the gene pool when they're fiscally responsible to take care of a child.
Your biggest hurdle would probably be your Catholics and fundies, but you can't have everything.

laziness.

ignoring how you would even starting doing that crime would skyrocket

Sterilizing legitimate developmental disorders is next to pointless. It isn't like people are going and encouraging their down syndrome kids to have "make baby playdates" with one another. They are selected against already.

>crime would skyrocket
It's a rocky start. The thing is within a few years those people get incarcerated, or die as victims of crime, or just grow out of it when they realize they have a living wage just for getting snipped. Meanwhile these shitty individuals aren't busy not raising the next generation of shitty individuals to replace them, but it's a much reduced rate.
Euthanasia isn't supposed to be a one step process, it's the thing that's expected to pay back in dividends GENERATIONS down the road.
So yeah, you take some short term losses, but once you start plotting forward you're now allowing an element of society that tends to be more destructive than constructive that breeds itself out.
Now you have reduced economic and resource pressures so the root cause of those problems ALSO take themselves out of the equation.

...

>or being socially valuable enough to have a shitload of money at their disposal
Here's your issue though, someone like a hedge fund manage who can be mathematically proven to do nothing takes home double digit millions of dollars per year, whereas a janitor, a garbage collector, a farmhand etc. perform socially necessary work for practically nothing.

There's no equivalence at all between 'being a benefit to society' and 'having lots of money' and in fact, the inverse is almost always true.

>negative eugenics

Its called "dysgenics". What you're referring to is just regular eugenics dumbass. Dysgenics is were you deliberately breed and select for deleterious traits.

Here's a fine example. SMASHED AND SLAMMED TOADLINE

youtube.com/watch?v=at_jL-yWjY8

SQUISHED AND SQUASHED

telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/13/extreme-horse-breeding-leaves-animals-looking-like-cartoons/

eugenics is backwards method
We should focus on GMO babies
We could literally have glow in the dark niggers RIGHT NOW

hurrr genocide people who notice racial difference as per the scientific method and arent buttblasted by jamal so as to destroy their heratige in their homelands.

>and arent buttblasted

I know vegans that own mutant fucked up eugenics dogs

It seems really hypocritical to me now that I think about it

Most vegans and vegetarians I've known don't actually have any ideological or ethical reasons for being one beyond hipster cred.
Most also don't know that we get a lot of essential nutrients from meat that aren't as available in vegetarian diets, and if you don't supplement that in your diet you become a pissy anemic malnourished nightmare.

>as per the scientific method
I've seen the way you schmucks abuse those poor studies. You should be ashamed

I'm sorry you don't have the pleasure of knowing decent, rational vegans, but even the ones you do know are essentially doing a good thing for the environment regardless
If done properly vegan diet only lacks in B12 vitamin, which could easily be supplemented