What's your opinion on eugenics?

submitted by detty from self.AskSaidIt

Accidentally stumbled upon a years old discussion on plebbit the other day while searching something up, and people were reeeing hard and losing their shit just at the mention of that word, which I honestly found hilarious, but there were also a lot of interesting takes from all sides of the debate. I'm curious to hear your opinions now.

inb4 REEEEEE a fedpost!!!1!!!!

top 100 commentsshow all 120
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Musky 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (45 children)

I value the idea of selectively breeding humans to improve the race as long as it's done voluntarily, but at the same time I'm not so sure what we would select for would be ultimately beneficial, like the now much maligned Red Delicious apple that were selectively bred for decades to look better but unintentionally became horrible tasting.

Often people say they want to breed out things like drug addiction and mental instability... but would a world of normie NPCs really be an improvement? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have most of our modern technology if we had been actively engaging in eugenics for the last 80 years.

[–]YoMamma 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I think that anyone looking at its approaches and its history will appreciate that attempts at 'eugenic' programs have never worked, mainly because of the failure to understand the roles of human agency and significant genetic problems in an attempted program. Wherever there's a failure to allow for 'natural' selection there will be major problems with the 'selections'. In order to breed people for certain abilities, the social costs for everyone are always much greater than the potential benefit of the selected breeding group. Eugenics programs cause many more problems than they attempt to solve, thus always ultimately failing to work as intended. Hence those who know about it aren't 'reeeing hard'. They're merely dismissing eugenics as incredibly problematic, unless natural selection is involved.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

attempts at 'eugenic' programs have never worked,

Complete nonsense. No one who has been doing it successfully will admit to it because that creates an arms race. They want to be the only ones doing it for as long as they can get away with being the only ones doing it.

[–]89P13 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No evidence

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes there is. A Chinese scientist admitted to genetically modifying humans and was quickly punished for it. That does not happen unless everyone in power is trying to discourage anyone doing it.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've given you two links above, to assessments of eugenics and its history. You can see there and elsewhere that there have been occasional attempts at eugenic programs, but none of them developed a sustained benefit. You mention below a random 'Chinese scientist', but this too has not resulted in any sustained beneficial outcome, or we'd know about it. You will find no evidence of a eugenics program that was more beneficial than it was problematic. Rather than take my word for it, look up the various attempts. If you find an example where natural selection was allowed, that was not necessarily as problematic because the approach was not a controlled eugenics program.

[–]RedditButt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Natural selection is basically eugenics with entropy.

[–]Titanic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

We don't really know what we're doing yet. By the time we do, it will be too late because everyone will have shit genes.

And even if we did know, the people in power would fuck it all up and start breeding dependent retards and maim victims and people who are easily brainwashed, because they make better voters.

Breed them weak, promise them healthcare, become their master, get their votes.

Monarchy wouldn't work either, because although the desire for votes is gone, the monarch will have his personal whims unchecked and nobody will be able to remove him. He wants to breed only blacks? He breeds only blacks. He wants to breed only whites? He breeds only whites.

We need to find a way to get GOD to fix our gene pool and REWRITE the genes that make us short, ugly and effiminate and stupid. He can change people's genes without killing them.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

They are already doing that. It's called multiculturalism.

[–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Or people just like exotic partners. USA has always been multicultural. Now Britain and the old world countries, I see why they would want to keep their race pure.

But us in the USA, it is the meaning of our country. It is the melting pot of the world where differences go to die.

Going to the US and complaining about diversity is like going to England and complaining that they still have a king, or going to china and complaining that people make shitty products.

If you think diversity is bad, you can do that. But why not just move? Might be easier.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Going to the US and complaining about diversity

The US used to be 90% white. Mass immigration is transforming the US for the worse and people are right to not want that.

[–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

In the old days there wasn't purity either. Savages mixed with englishes, mixed with scotts and Micks mixed with wops and krauts and all became one amalgamated mass. So now we're adding some pajeet and nigger and kike and chink in there, it's the same idea nothing new. Same immigration laws as always, it's just that now different countries are sending their people over. Our country has always welcomed people from EVERYWHERE. Read the new collossus poem. Except for a short time with the chinks we didn't, lol.

Only at the very beginning were we all one ethnicity during the colonial times. But that was extremely short lived, and we have always been about accepting outsiders, AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW THE LAW.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Only at the very beginning were we all one ethnicity during the colonial times.

During the colonial times each ethnicity lived in their own settlements and they did not comingle. The rare occasion of miscegenation was considered a disgrace. It was not until long after the war of independence that any significant numbers of non english were even allowed to live in the states because of the need for bodies to power american exansion into the west. The absorption of the french colonies was the first infusion of non english blood.

Your belief that miscegenation is normal and was always common is the result of propaganda. It is just wrong, but you grew up surrounded by people very passionate about their belief that racism is a great evil and should be rooted out. To that end you have been mind fucked by liars and the useful idiots that this constant lying produces.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

During the colonial times each ethnicity lived in their own settlements and they did not comingle.

Tell me you know nothing about colonial times without saying you know nothing about colonial times.

Interracial marriage was banned in the state of Virginia in 1691, a full 84 years -- that's four generations -- after it was established. You don't have to ban something that isn't happening. Many of the early "founding fathers" took brides from the local Algonquian tribe too.

How is it that Americans are so fucking ignorant about their own history? If you Yanks were any more ignorant, you'd think men can turn into women by putting on lipstick and a dress. Oh wait.

load more comments (1 reply)

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The US used to be 90% white. Mass immigration is transforming the US for the worse and people are right to not want that.

    Behold the white master race.

    I can see why you would be so upset about letting these latino degenerates into the country to dilute the gene pool.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Or people just like exotic partners.

    The vast majority of people build relationships with those who are around them.

    [–]pretty_innocuous 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    I don't know if fruits would be good for comparison, since most are relative monocultures.

    Human biodiversity is pretty immense, and the list of well-understood genetic defects is pretty long and growing.

    One could easily begin breeding out undesirable traits, and if done through incentives, rather than mandates, it could be done without impinging on any individual rights.

    [–]Musky 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    How about the Habsburg as an example then, or anyone breeding for a royal blood line. We certainly know more know that we did, but there's still also plenty of chronic ailments for which there are no tests. Who's to say the offspring of any particular pairing wouldn't show defects until well into adulthood. You could be generations into a particular engineered bloodline before the problems were noticed.

    The law of unintended consequences is going to bite is in the ass when we start seriously fooling around with DNA.

    [–]pretty_innocuous 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    I'd say the Habsburgs are more an argument FOR eugenics than AGAINST.

    Certain groups with narrower gene pools (e.g. NY hascidim) already often do genetic testing before marriage to check for just these types of recessive disorders.

    You wouldn't expect to introduce Habsburgian recessive disorders unless your particular eugenics program was fundamentally faulty.

    [–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    They didn't realize their eugenics program was fundamentally flawed until it was too late. Their mistake is an obvious one to us now, but who's to say we won't unintentionally unleash another similarly ill fated experiment.

    [–]detty[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Mentally stable people who don't do drugs don't always have to be "normie NPCs".

    Otherwise, very based.

    [–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    With LSD you could become the next Boris Gates.

    [–]detty[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Or I could become a homeless junkie as it could be a slippery slope to other hard drugs & addiction.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have most of our modern technology if we had been actively engaging in eugenics for the last 80 years.

    That's a wild conclusion. How can you get more intelligent, harder working people and end up worse? We would be hundreds of years ahead because only the top .1% of people actually do anything that advances society. A relatively small increase in average intelligence could push a relatively huge percentage of people into the same IQ level. If just 1% of people became innovative that would be transformative.

    [–]Musky 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    How can you get more intelligent, harder working people and end up worse?

    A man can be smart and hard working and perfect in almost every way but not possess that spark of genius some do. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs wouldn't be anyone's idea of the perfect man. They wouldn't exist in a society with perfect DNA. If they didn't exist, or even all the people who led up to the moment each of them took LSD - and that includes a lot of undesirables, would we even have personal computers today?

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    A man can be smart and hard working and perfect in almost every way but not possess that spark of genius some do.

    A genius with no inspiration is always better than an inspired moron. The former will still produce great work that is simply not revolutionary. The latter will do nothing with that inspiration because he can't. You need people with enough intelligence to bring their vision to fruition. I would not be so quick to judge the intelligence of people you never met. I am pretty sure both bill gates and steve jobs have an IQ in the top 20%.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    How can you get more intelligent, harder working people and end up worse?

    Think about how much harm just one hard-working genus, Thomas Midgley, managed, and now imagine society had a hundred million of him.

    Every awful invention was created by hard-working intelligent people.

    • The bankers that came up with the complex financial plans and the sub-prime mortgage scams that almost collapsed the western economies in 2008 were hard-working, intelligent people.
    • Intelligent, hard-working people re-created the 1918 Spanish Flu virus.
    • Intelligent, hard-working people spent years collecting bat viruses and then breeding them using gain of function experiments to make them more deadly and more infectious to humans in the very city where, purely coincidentally I am sure, Covid first appeared.
    • Intelligent, hard-working people invented the internet of shit. Some hard-working, intelligent person created a car and programmed it with the sentence “Road is too steep to start the installation” and thought "Job well done!".

    I actually know people with IQs off the chart who are supposed to be really, really intelligent, and I'm not convinced that high intelligence is a survival trait.

    High intelligence is a risk factor for many psychological and physiological disorders, including immune-system disorders and Aspergers/autism.

    Very smart people tend to have much, much higher rates of mental illness, including anxiety, manic-depression, severe hypochondria, etc. Depression seems to be especially common. Often very smart people have severe personality flaws: one woman I know was used to calibrate the 200+ end of IQ scores, and she had literally no sense of humour at all. None. Could not understand the concept of "funny" at all.

    It's hard to say whether sociopaths are more likely to be way above average intelligence, or whether the dumb psychopaths just get themselves killed or in jail very early. But either way, there does seem to be a correlation between being well above average in intelligence and being a sociopath/psychopath.

    And of course, just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you won't act dumb. In some ways, intelligent people are the easiest to fool, or to fool themselves, because they are better at convincing themselves that what they want to be true is true even when it isn't.

    only the top .1% of people actually do anything that advances society.

    That's hilarious 😂 😂 😂

    CC u/detty

    [–]NastyWetSmear 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Like a lot of good ideas, it's marred by the people and method of its most vocal supporters.

    [–]hfxB0oyA 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    I'm more in favour of just separating myself from people I find distasteful than advocating their removal from the gene pool.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Do you think everyone should have the right to separate themselves from people they find distasteful?

    Do you understand that in western countries that is not allowed?

    [–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Well, we can do our best. And for those instances where we have to work / socialize with those we'd prefer not to, there's always carefully disguised disdain.

    [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Having disdain for people is beneath me, and hardly a valid concession to not being allowed to self segregate. I don't have any ill will for those misfortunate enough to be in the bottom of the genetic pool. I think most of them are great people who deserve respect, who are contributing members of society, and I wish them the best. But lying about the value of genetics is extremely harmful to everyone, even them.

    [–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    We selectively breed all our livestock and crops. It is extremely successful and does not have any of the negative consequences everyone always claims that eugenics will create.

    The only reason I can think of as to why we are not doing it is because the people in power don't want the plebs to be intelligent.

    [–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    If the plebs weren't already total morons, they could implement eugenics regardless of what the elite want.

    Why aren't you doing eugenics yourself? I am with my Arkian project.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Why aren't you doing eugenics yourself?

    How do you imagine that works? Jerk off to classical music?

    If the plebs weren't already total morons

    Sort of, if they had enough intelligence they would all see the benefit and fight for it but ironically if they were intelligent enough there would not be any need for eugenics. But people can not just do whatever they want regardless of what the elite want. For example white people are not allowed to have white only spaces. That is a type of eugenics. In the same fashion anyone trying to set up a eugenics program would be quickly and quietly shut down. You would need an overwhelming amount of people who want to do it and that requires people to first overcome the anti eugenics propaganda they have been indoctrinated with.

    [–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    How do you imagine that works? Jerk off to classical music?

    As I said, with my Arkian project. http://www.arkian.net/

    In the same fashion anyone trying to set up a eugenics program would be quickly and quietly shut down.

    No, there is nothing that anyone can do to stop something like my Arkian project. The problem isn't opposition. The problem is that humanity has degenerated into pure unadulterated shit. For example not one person on SaidIt besides me does anything of value. I have the Arkian project. I also write reactionary programming tools. No one else does anything of value. That is the real problem.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Your arkian project is a honeypot at best. Religion has no merit in a community based on genetics and evolution.

    [–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Another retard who shouldn't reproduce.

    load more comments (1 reply)

      [–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      There's a problem with the chicken, when it's grown too fast you can get "spaghetti meat," and I'm told it doesn't taste nearly as good as chicken from other countries.

      [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I don't want people to taste good. I want the bottom 50% of people to get to the same level as the top 50%. I don't see how that could possibly lead to the kinds of problems that happen when you take something to the extreme.

      And we should absolutely push intelligence forward until we reach the point of consequences and then deal with those problems using that intelligence.

      [–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

      I think society is implementing eugenics anyway with it's cultural preferences so it's probably better to do so consciously than blindly.

      However there a big problem with unexpected consequences as genes and traits considered bad often have a purpose. For instance high IQ populations usually gave more autism and also suffer from population decline as high IQ people are too risk adverse to have kids.

      [–]Pdiddler 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Ladies that suck and dance nekked should be paid to reproduce.

      [–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      All women dance naked, just not necessarily where you can see them

      [–]Pdiddler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Good point

      [–]Mcheetah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I think society is implementing eugenics anyway with it's cultural preferences

      Women only going for 6'3" millionaire Chads isn't eugenics; it's Darwinism/selective breeding. And considering these people on both genders are usually retards, it's not necessarily for the benefit of humanity.

      However there a big problem with unexpected consequences as genes and traits considered bad often have a purpose.

      You mean like allowing short people to breed in case there's some kind of air pollution problem and all the tall people start dying or something? Yes, "genetic diversity" sometimes has its purpose to ensure a species can survive no matter what afflicts certain members of that species, but humanity has pretty much done away with all of those potential issues due to advancements in medical science. There's no real need for mentally retarded, short, or fat people to reproduce; outside of some apocalyptic scenario where all the food runs out or the entire planet becomes freezing cold and the obese people can survive longer with more body fat or something. (I say this being short and overweight, myself.)

      [–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      No I'm not just talking about genetic diversity. I'm talking about trade offs which you can't get around.

      For instance the genes which make you likely to get gout also stop you getting parkinsons disease. If you wanted to select against gout you'd get more parkinsons in the population and vise versa. There are a lot of trade offs like that in genetics. Most genes effect more than one thing.

      High IQ people tend to be highly risk adverse. This is a problem if you need people to make decisions or take risks. This is why most business owners are closer to average intelligence than they are to the top 1% of IQ.

      [–]Mcheetah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      For instance the genes which make you likely to get gout also stop you getting Parkinson's disease. If you wanted to select against gout you'd get more Parkinson's in the population and vise versa. There are a lot of trade offs like that in genetics. Most genes effect more than one thing.

      Isn't that still just genetic diversity? Just at a cellular level? I don't get it.

      High IQ people tend to be highly risk adverse.

      Yes, but this doesn't mean they still aren't, there's just less of them than those who are risk averse but less intelligent. And if the ones who are highly intelligent and successful in being risk averse thrive, than those are the ones who are "fittest." So yes, I see what you mean in trade-offs, but not every potential scenario or trait is necessary.

      [–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      I'm high IQ and autistic.

      I'm sure we could create high IQ people who are healthy, but there are many problems:

      First of all, there is a diversity in high IQ. Some are good at art, some science, some poetry.

      We don't have the knowledge yet to select in a way that provides the diversity of high intelligence, if we select for a monoculture of poets or scientists we tank our society. If we fuck this up, we could accidentally EXTERMINATE certain types of genes that might be needed to create certain forms of intelligence.

      This knowledge will take, I predict, around 500 years to gather, even WITH the exponential increase in our scientific and technological capacity as time progresses. We don't even know what regulatory DNA even DOES yet, and that's most of the issue: coding DNA isn't all there is.

      By the time we learn how to engineer a population of beautiful smart tall happy people, our gene pool is going to be so completely sodomized from modern medicine, so absolutely RAPED that it will be too late, we will all be crippled suffering ugly midgets.

      On the other hand, if we make medicine illegal, people will just buy them anyway. And also God will punish us for violating people's rights.

      So in the end, we need to get together and start praying for God to do this. Fix our genes.

      Because otherwise we don't have a fucking CHANCE.

      [–]gloomy_bear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I assume you're low support needs? I know plenty of high IQ autists who are all over the spectrum. In fact, there's a few high IQ autists who are high support needs. I would say it's more common for some severe autists to have a high IQ than mild to moderate autists with lower IQs. I haven't quite met somebody with a lowish IQ like myself who's low to medium support needs. Usually they're just medium or high support needs.

      [–]Mcheetah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      By the time we learn how to engineer a population of beautiful smart tall happy people, our gene pool is going to be so completely sodomized from modern medicine, so absolutely RAPED that it will be too late, we will all be crippled suffering ugly midgets.

      Isn't that just The Netherlands and Latin America?

      (I'M JOKING.)

      [–]gloomy_bear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Well I'm lowerish IQ (88-92ish) and autistic so lol. My twin sister is also low IQ (50) and autistic. We don't always have high IQs although it seems to be more common for autists to be on both ends of the curve (95- and 130+)

      [–]yellowsnow2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The problem with eugenics is it is always controlled and done in favor of the inbred parasite part of humanity. These same genetic lines that call themselves royal or oligarch have been detrimental and keeping the human race down for thousands of years are the very ones that should be exterminated from the gene pool. Look what happened in the last couple hundred year when the human race finally got a tiny bit of freedom from the parasites.

      [–]detty[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Now my opinion: I'm personally all for it. I don't support any extreme measures, or any infringement on the rights of an individual whatsoever. I think that societal pressure works best and we, as a society, should discourage genetically defective people from reproducing.

      That's what it was like in my country in 00s - early 10s. Ugly, mentally ill people, people with hereditary diseases and overall shitty genes were shamed left and right if they chose to have kids. The fundraisers for the disabled babies were largely laughed at, everyone involved in the process faced extreme judgement. I grew up with the idea that genetically defective people shouldn't reproduce and everyone seemed to agree with that... until it suddenly became a "wrong" thing to say. And right about that time our government started to implement integrative education, which proved itself completely useless to one party and counterproductive to the other. Luckily, I will only have to put up with this shit until June, but I feel sorry for the remaining students who will have to deal with the consequences of inclusivity, especially since more and more parents are shoving their retarded kids down everyone's throats.

      I see nothing wrong with wanting a healthy population, though not when it's achieved by forced sterilization, murders, etc. In other words – I support eugenics, but strongly oppose the nazi implementation of the idea.

      [–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Seems you're against eugenics, though in favor of - for example - 1st term abortion of fetuses that would be born with serious defects, or - for example - sterilization of people who can pass on serious genetic problems. What I think some in this thread are conflating is this, as summarized rather well by a bot:

      Artificial selection and eugenics are related concepts but with different implications and ethical considerations.

      Artificial selection, also known as selective breeding, is the process by which humans intentionally breed plants or animals with specific desirable traits to produce offspring with those traits. This process has been used for centuries in agriculture to improve crop yields and in animal husbandry to create specific breeds with desired characteristics. [this happens today and many agree with it]

      Eugenics, on the other hand, is a social philosophy and a set of practices that aims to improve the genetic quality of a human population. It involves promoting reproduction among individuals with desirable traits and discouraging or preventing reproduction among those with perceived undesirable traits. Historically, eugenics has been associated with coercive and discriminatory practices, including forced sterilization and other human rights abuses. [this is the eugenics problem that many naturally disagree with]

      While artificial selection focuses on the breeding of plants and animals for specific traits, eugenics pertains to human populations and has been widely criticized for its ethical implications, including its association with discriminatory and harmful practices.

      [–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Nothing is more important. My implementation is here: http://www.arkian.net/

      [–]detty[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Has anyone actually joined?

      [–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      We currently have just 4 members. I plan to try to promote this in mosques but I haven't had time to try it yet.

      [–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I think it's a smart thing to do. Too bad we have so many flavors of untermenschen and they would all be offended.

      [–]HibikiBlack 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I see it as similar to body hygiene. While I think people overrate it when compared to the need for religion, I still see value in it, to me taking care of the nation is related to body health, and ultimately, body health and eugenics go hand in hand.

      [–]HugodeCrevellier 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It's probably better than dys-genics,
      which is the current fashion it often seems,
      where we praise the primitive, stupid, and ugly
      ... just as in the 'Fine Arts'.

      [–]CivilWarrior 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      All I know is Natural Selection has almost completely been disrupted and shut down with over population and the advent of civilization and the medical industry. So we are currently doing the exact opposite of Eugenics, which would be just as bad as Eugenics in reality.

      [–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      I don't support Eugenics, it is the forced murder of innocent people.

      [–]detty[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      I think you might be a little confused there. I asked about the concept itself, not the nazi implementation of it.

      [–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Is there an implementation of eugenics that doesn't murder people?

      [–]detty[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      There should be, in theory.

      [–]RedditButt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      That's where opt-in vs opt-out would handle the issue differently. You could engage in eugenics where you simply murdered anyone who didn't fit your criteria, or you could make it a club where you only invited people based on your criteria.

      [–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It is still discrimination. Sounds like transhumanism.

      [–]Clown_Chan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I'm all for it.

      Only the people with best genectics should be allowed to reproduce. All disabled or disfigured babies should be aborted or if they unfortunately get born, they should be euthanised.

      [–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

      Optimally we need God to do it.

      Our gene pool is going to shit because medicine is keeping the sick and ugly from being weeded out, and they pass on crap genes. But keeping people from getting medicine is immoral and God could punish us if we do this.

      We need to get together and BEG god to fix our problems. And then if that doesn't work, we can try taking the problem into our own hands. But first, let's ask God.

      [–]fschmidt 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      In Genesis 30, did Jacob wait for God to breed speckled goats or did he take action to do it himself? How is this any different from breeding good people?

      [–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Because man is made in the image of God and if you fuck it up you have created conscious persons who will suffer. Also, if you infringe on their rights during youro effort, you might piss god off and he could hurt you.

      If you make a deformed goat, just kill it and start over. If two goats don't want to breed, just force one to rape the other. Nothing wrong was done.

      Not so with man. We have a dignity animals do not.

      [–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      You must be Christian to say something so silly. Jacob didn't kill the goats or force them to rape each other. He just encouraged the ones he wanted to breed. This doesn't infringe on any rights. But then I wouldn't expect a Christian to know the Bible. There is no way that such an approach applied to people would do any harm.

      [–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I know more about the bible than you ever will. And I'm not even an expert.

      If I pen two people together and tell them they must fuck each other to leave, I'd be thrown in jail for kidnapping and sexual assault.

      If I do it with goats it's fine.

      [–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      I think it's just an account of Jacob's breeding program. Regardless of what he dreamt (re. spotted or striped sheep &c), he discussed a different breeding methodology than that used by Laban, in order to breed stronger sheep than Laban. This is a Hebrew way of arguing that God helped with animal husbandry and thus the result of Jacob's methods: "So the feebler would be Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s. Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys." (Genesis 30:37–43) The main motive here is money. God's advice may have appeared in a dream, but ultimately Jacob supposedly developed a better method for breeding sheep. Some scholars think he used herbs and other nutrients to help with the process. Thus the sheep were healthier. Laban did not use herbs and special foods. Hence this was not a eugenic program. It was a nutrition prgram.

      [–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Did you intentionally skip the relevant part?

      Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob placed the branches in the troughs, in full view of the flocks, and they would breed in front of the branches. As for the weaklings of the flocks, he did not put out the branches. So it turned out that the weak sheep belonged to Laban and the stronger ones to Jacob.

      -- Genesis 30:41-42

      So it was breeding, not nutrition.

      [–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I explained this to you, in detail. Selective breeding combined with a different nutrition program. The only non-standard element was the nutrition program (the branches). That's what improved the sheep. Laban previously had the better, all white sheep. Comparing eugenics to sheep breeding is ridiculous because the sheep still use natural selection, even when you isolate different parts of the flocks. Eugenics is much more focused on specific individuals and types, and rarely involves a nutrition program. You can find more information on this nutrition program of Jacob's if you search for it.

      [–]Clown_Chan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      God doesn't exists, retard.

      [–]Titanic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      You're partially right, God doesn't exist the way a plant or hammer or person exists.

      God is the "existence" ITSELF.

      He exists as truth itself, in which all other things exist.

      [–]Clown_Chan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      Lmao OK fine, Christfag.

      If it makes you feels better, then keep telling yourself that.

      [–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      Whatever, you baby murder apologist feminazi.

      [–]Clown_Chan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Lmao, whatever Christcuck

      At least I don't force vegetable children to be born and live pathetic, pointless and humiliating existence.

      [–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Were you abused as a kid? Is that why you hate men and children so much that you call men "scrotes" and advocate for the murder of disabled children here and in other posts?

      Were you beaten or sexually abused? What the fuck happened to you? You need therapy.

      I want to know so I can decide whether to pray for you or just keep showing you that it's immoral to be a Nazi.

      load more comments (1 reply)

        [–]211 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        I'm pro selecting high iq people to breed on a farm to create a nation of 160 iq average geniuses and solve the wq

        what's odd is that people are totally fine with female "eugenics" which involves killing off 99 percent of the male population and select for dysgenic traits like height, physical strength, aggression, dominance, and psychopathy

        [–]Clown_Chan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Good

        Ugly, short and weak men shouldn't be allowed to reproduce because they produce ugly, dumb and weak children.

        Cope and seethe incel.

        [–]211 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Newton was a virgin as well as kafka and most mit students you troglodyte nigger

        [–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Height and strength are not dysgenic. They are fitting to men.

        The taller the better, up to a certain point.

        [–]fla_ral 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        you mean transgenderism? I'm all for depraved fuck to get castracted physically yes.

        [–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The current transgender push as an attempt at eugenics (convincing the confused, 'weak-minded', homosexuals, etc., to become sterile) ... what a cynical take!

        [–]xoenix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The rich ones want to buy designer babies. Eventually the poor ones will demand equity.

        [–]MagicMike 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        The welfare state and Industrial Revolution really fucked things up: a species that was under natural selection now has miscreants and mutants flooding the gene pool. Unless we go full Nazi, all we can do is let a plague or nuclear war wipe out most of humanity and hope for a Brave New World (eugenic world).

        [–]Titanic 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        What about God? God could supply these defects. Perhaps we could all start praying and maybe God will start working miracles.

        It will take time to learn to do it ourselves, without accidentally exterminating crucial genes or having the process commandeered by corrupt politicians. By the time we get everything right and can act with reasonable levels of certainty, our gene pool will be ruined.

        [–]Mcheetah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I support it, to a degree. I believe in voluntarily eugenics based on health, not on race or wealth. We shouldn't be letting mentally ill, genetically diseased, or severely physically disabled people reproduce. And I personally live by this mantra. I'm only 180 cm and I had Precocious Puberty as a child, among Hypothyroidism as an adult, which is why I'd never under any circumstances conceive a child, especially if it was going to be a son and end up as another me. Even if I was rich enough to get a woman to overlook my midget-ass fucking height, and she was the girl of my dreams, I'd still sooner adopt an Asian baby girl than actually bring another person in this world with genes as FUCKED UP as mine. I don't even like it when other short people breed, but I guess, "uh, life finds a way." And I also guess, people are more than their shitty genetics. Although with me, I personally support eugenics and letting humans advance forward, instead of letting all the inbreds, Downs Syndrome babies, and mental retards reproduce.

        u/Detty is a female, so she never has to worry about this, anyway. But men do have to worry about if they'll be able to ever find someone to allow them to have kids or not.

        [–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I'm only 180 cm

        That's 5'9". That's right around the mean in most westernized countries (5'9" - 5'10") - pretty far from a midget.

        [–]LarrySwinger2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        REEEEEE a fedpost!!!1!!!!

        [–]gloomy_bear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I dunno. I feel like everyone is on this earth for a reason.

        [–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        If you're a good guy and going to try to improver he world like the nazis tried to, you can't lose. Now evil rules the world.

        [–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        To make eugenics work one should be able to accurately have a preferably quantum simulation of a human existing in a virtual society for an entire lifetime, perhaps even for multiple generations. This technology is currently out of reach.

        Anything less and by definition you are not knowing what you are doing.

        There are many diseases that only have a single point mutation as a defect resulting in a single critical protein not working and in the cases where you really know the DNA has a defect (not just a new variant you know nothing about), then you could do it before birth (and ethically you should).

        If you know a pregnant woman is going to be bit by a car and her child will be disabled as a result of that, would you not stop that car if you could? When a woman was made pregnant minutes ago to give birth to a severely disabled child (for some value of disabled) in 9 months, why would anyone be against a nano-machine performing an automated abortion and just selecting literally any other sperm cell at random until something is selected that isn't known to be broken?