/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14734585]

Any good book on the practical implications of eugenics?

[Anonymous No.14734591]

>>14734585
Dune

[Anonymous No.14734592]

i'm not in favor of eugenics, but this really shouldn't be controversial.

[Anonymous No.14734598]

>>14734592
It should if you aren't a brainlet. Cows are optimized for good meat, humans would be optimized for retarded metrics that would lead nowhere.

[Anonymous No.14734600]

>>14734585
brother you're living it. people fucking people they don't want children with have changed the face of relationships. christian women killing their own offspring when it would inconvenience them while speaking against abortion is fucking wild.

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/why-do-christian-women-continue-to-have-abortions.html

Hell even 4chan is a form of castration. Read his book "the selfish gene" and then "evolution in four dimensions" and then "the 10,000 year explosion"

[Anonymous No.14734604]

Humans have very long generational cycles making classic eugenics unworkable. There is no way a government would be willing to initiate and maintain a program at great cost knowing it would have to wait for at least a century and probably more before reaping any benefit. Moreover classic eugenics does not allow for improving favorable genes in isolation. You will invariably find yourself with reinforced bad traits along with the good traits you selected for (see dysplasia in dogs breeds).

Genetic engineering has much more potential than eugenics. You can work on genes in isolation and you immediately benefit from the result of your work.

[Anonymous No.14734606]

>>14734591
fpbp

If anything would convince me to support eugenics, it would be Dune. I don't see it realistically happening though.

[Anonymous No.14734609]

[Anonymous No.14734617]

>>14734585
i love how women are redpilled on eugenics

[Anonymous No.14734623]

>>14734598
Actually a practical implementation of eugenics would be something like sterilizing people with Huntington's disease or preventing two carriers of the allele from mating via genetic screening. Trying to select for polygenic traits is obviously foolhardy because of complex interactions -- that even if we understood them, would likely be too tangled to avoid harmful side effects.

>t. computational biologist

[Anonymous No.14734625]

>>14734623
That kind of eugenics is already happening >>14734617

[Anonymous No.14734636]

>>14734625
Yeah I saw that right after I posted. It's in the same vein, but I think going forward, as more and more phenotype mapping studies are done, genetic testing will become prominent and a lot of these cases will be either caught (or, with the application of crispr and other gene editing tools) "fixed" before the woman needs to think about abortion.

[Anonymous No.14734641]

>>14734636
Yeah dwon syndrome should be especially easy to fix with crispr given how straightforward the genetic issue is (delete one chromosome in excess). In fact is suspect it's already feasible with current technology. Likely costlier than an abortion though (that said crispr is surprisingly cheap).

[Anonymous No.14734670]

>>14734641
Moving away from eugenics a bit, the real exciting stuff with crispr is being able to edit your own germline cells and re-transplant them into the host with 0 rejection. There's a guy from Stanford I heard a talk from a few years back who's using this technique to treat rare autoimmune diseases by essentially doing a bone marrow transplant with patients own bone marrow -- but edited with crispr to remove the gene causing the autoimmune reaction. The transplanted germline will compete with the deficient cells and eventually overtake them to basically permanently cure the patient. Apparently it doesn't even take that many transplants.

[Anonymous No.14734702]

It won't be the proles deciding what qualities are selected

[macau No.14734887]

most women have abortion because they can't afford it

[Anonymous No.14735515]

>>14734617
I was born in 1997 and my parents somehow got a false positive that I had Downs. I'm the youngest by 8 years, my mom was 38 at the time. Supposedly the doctors suggested aborting me, and my parents said the only reason they didn't is because my Catholic grandmother would've been mad.

[Anonymous No.14735530]

>>14735515
>false positive

[Anonymous No.14735548]

>>14735530
Even a downie could tell they're a downie when they look in the mirror, anon
You can't exactly hide the symptoms, it's not a spectrum

[Anonymous No.14735563]

>>14734604
wow, Americans really do think 100 years is a long time

[Anonymous No.14735641]

>>14734887
>afford it
in all senses of the word 'afford'

[Anonymous No.14735654]

its fine to want to have agency over your own bloodline and immediate family and community. its abhorrent to argue institutional eugenics from a government as something that is desirable in any way

[Anonymous No.14735657]

>>14735530
it's pretty common, happened to a friend I know, they measure the spine or something

[Anonymous No.14735695]

>>14735654

But why?
Eugenics is basically just taking something that humans and all creatures do instinctively and executing it with a greater scope
I genuinely think that the real reason eugenics is dismissed by people who are actually in a position to carry it out is purely because they know such a practice would upset the balance of power but of course they feed a politically correct excuse to the masses instead

[Anonymous No.14735715]

>>14735695
The problem is that giving the gov power to genetically modify humans is always going to lead to them to genetically modify a vast slave caste

[Anonymous No.14735918]

>>14734598
You are a brainlet who didn't understand his point. Dawkins didn't say eugenics should be done.

[Anonymous No.14735967]

>i am growing stronger
When did Dawkins become based

[Anonymous No.14736000]

>>14734585
love the replies on tthis tweet
>that chink """doctor"""
>shaun the numale, fandango
>seething roasties UHHH CAN YOU NOT UHH HUHH HMM YIKES???!!

[Anonymous No.14736040]

>>14735715

Is that really worse than how things are now though?
Is it really worse to engineer people to be slaves so that they could possibly feel fulfilled in that life rather than enslave normal people who can never be fulfilled that way and tell them they are free?

[Anonymous No.14736078]

>>14734585
Jewish Eugenics is a very interesting read, more on the socio-political-historical side of things

http://whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0000/Glad.John.2011b.Jewish_Eugenics.pdf

>>14734600
Eugenics is a conscious effort to improve humanity, what you're describing is just changing trends in reproduction.

>christian women killing their own offspring when it would inconvenience them while speaking against abortion is fucking wild.
No it's not. People don't want to be inconvenienced and Christian ideologues are against abortion.

[Anonymous No.14736137]

>>14734585

[Anonymous No.14736185]

>>14735654
Why is it ok for two people to control the destiny of another but wrong for a larger unit to do so? If you're in any way serious you basically have to abandon the entire notion of the nation state.
A central global breeding system is really far fetched but national eugenics will start happening.

>>14735715
Obviously some group may try such things but would it be successful? I doubt it since raw man power in the future will be worth less, considering machines, and getting the right mix of intelligence and unquestioning obedience would be extremely hard... and if such a society worked I don't see what the problem would be.

[Anonymous No.14736193]

>>14736137
>teleology
But if you get this you DO know what to select for

[Anonymous No.14736205]

>>14734598
can humans be bred to jump higher?
yes
should they be bred to jump higher?
no
is this too much for you to follow?

[Anonymous No.14736206]

>>14736137
That's why you select for everything. You don't develop one human type, you develop castes with different specializations, and maybe one well-rounded caste with no specializations just to be safe.

[Anonymous No.14736215]

>>14734585
>Facts ignore ideology

Materialist rationalism and empiricism have to be the two most malignant forms of social and psychological cancer that could fester within a people.

[Anonymous No.14736234]

How about an Open Source dating app that finds best match partners based on Eugenic traits.
Everyone. or at least most people already engage in eugenics (see anti incest), but it might be better if we focus on it more.. There is either Dysgenics or Eugenics, without one the other will be prominent./

We might program the App to prioritize traits like compassion, creativity, patience, self control, ... idk. Or maybe we should leave nature alone. Birth control already screwed things up, and subverted natural selection, as well as modern medicine (esp in 3rd world)

[Anonymous No.14736289]

>>14734623
that's fucking retarded. if i had a child your bitching about "complex interactions" would not stop me from taking a bunch of potential fertilized to some guy who will give me an estimate on iq, which i am 100% sure we have a better idea of than "nothing", and pick the highest one. people are going to do this whether you like it or not and it will eventually cause genetic improvement among the people who are doing it.

[Anonymous No.14736327]

>>14736234
Most people aren't interested in eugenics so I don't see how a voluntary system would work. Births are happening every minute for every reason besides improving humanity. It's mostly vanity on the part of the father or mother. You need a lot more social pressure and change in attitudes before anything like that could happen and the worlds religions as well as permissive liberal cultures will make sure that won't happen anytime soon.

[Anonymous No.14736336]

>>14736137
Based. I thought he’d comment on this retardation.

[Anonymous No.14736346]

>>14736137
Why wouldn't we know what to select for?
What a stupid arab.

>>14736327
>Most people aren't interested in eugenics
Everyone is interested. Ask a pregnant woman if he wants to have a deformed child or not.

[Anonymous No.14736352]

>>14736346
>he
*she (female)

[Anonymous No.14736367]

>>14736137
>i'm going to ignore the fact that you specified you are talking about objective reality and not ethics and sperg out about ethics because any conversation about things i don't like should contain repudiations
i really hate these people

[Anonymous No.14736380]

>>14736367
He's such an annoying cunt. A mix of autism, reddit and arab inferiority complex. He's literally worse than Molymeme.

[Anonymous No.14736411]

It’s insane how a biologist, specially a guy working with evolution and a hardcore neodarwinist would say eugenics “work”.

[Anonymous No.14736415]

>>14736346
>Everyone is interested. Ask a pregnant woman if he wants to have a deformed child or not.
Eugenics is a conscious project for improving the gene pool. Most people do NOT believe in this. Yes if asked they'll say some variant of they want "what's best" for their children and good health and such but that ain't eugenics. Most people believe in accepting an ordained faith and don't want to play god. If they're child turns out totally wrong they're not going to euthanize it and they'll insist every human has the right to conceive as they personally see fit and that love is more important than more utilitarian concerns.

[Anonymous No.14736420]

>>14736367
He didn’t sperg out about ethics, you complete fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.14736435]

>>14734585
How about animal husbandry or agriculture ? Adolf is kind of a no no in these fields tho.

[Anonymous No.14736446]

>>14736415
>Most people believe in accepting an ordained faith and don't want to play god.
You're deluded. See >>14734617

And yes, they'd also want this on a larger scale. Deep down they'd rather not live among deformed humans, for example.
Obviously things are more complicated, but in general people tend to want higher quality populations.

[Anonymous No.14736450]

>>14736137
taleb is such a fucking tard

[Anonymous No.14736454]

>>14736420
>i'm compelled to express how upset i am that another person would attempt to talk about truth without telling people to feel the way i want them to
if that's not sperging it's only because spergs are more rational than he is.

>>14736415
>Eugenics is a conscious project for improving the gene pool.
everyone is going to consciously improve their gene pool. you can play word games if you want but some set of people are going to do this, their children are going to do this and probably select mates based on similar criteria, and it will eventually cause a mass shift. the only question is whether that trickles down or there's an underclass of plebs being out-competed by people 30 iq higher than them

[Anonymous No.14736465]

>>14734585
normally I hate dawkins but he's right in his spooked out logical positivist way

[Anonymous No.14736475]

>>14736215
lol says the faggot that believes in spooky souls and ghosts. Your need to see an oncologist!

[Anonymous No.14736500]

It's always funny how the "religion is backwards, I love science" reddit trannies turn into devout Christians when a taboo human biology subject comes up.

[Anonymous No.14736526]

>>14736446
Abortion isn't "playing god" (ya millions of religious types will say so but that's besides the point), it's always been going on. There's no conscious effort at going much beyond individuals deciding what's best for their children which is not much but natural selection. Eugenics has to be a social project and individual decisions would have to be forcefully overridden.

>>14736454
People don't want children they can't relate to, they don't want retards but they don't want their kids to be intellectually on par with post-human AI gods.

[Anonymous No.14736534]

>>14734585
if you think about it, isn't anything other than mandatory government assigned sex partners eugenics? otherwise you're basically saying incels don't get to procreate and share their genes because they can't attract women

[Anonymous No.14736550]

>>14736465
when he sticks to his field he's good, but he should never discuss anything beyond.

[Anonymous No.14736559]

>>14734585
So by this very tweet, Dawkins has no actual argument against eugenics other then "racism bad m'kay?"

This is why I wish they'd take his diplomas away from him.

[Anonymous No.14736560]

>>14736526
>People don't want children they can't relate to
they get children that are the best of what their genes can offer, not superhumans. also it's absolutely retarded to believe there aren't many people who would choose to have the smartest child in the world given a choice

[Anonymous No.14736580]

>>14736526
>Abortion isn't "playing god"
>Eugenics has to be a social project and individual decisions would have to be forcefully overridden.
These are your opinions and arbitrary statements. The dictionary definition of eugenics is broader than that.

>>14736534
>isn't anything other than mandatory government assigned sex partners eugenics?
Pretty much, yes. All living creatures practice eugenics when selecting sexual partners.
The problem of agency is important too here, as Dawkins explained in his "Selfish Gene".

[Anonymous No.14736585]

>>14736559
He doesn't argue against it. He states a fact after noting what he is specifically not talking about. You dumb normalfags just can't process anything except through your emotions and get triggered when you notice someone not expressing the same emotions as you.

[Anonymous No.14736588]

>>14736534
No. Just because some people aren't having children you don't have eugenics. A system of eugenics wouldn't even be concerned about natural "attraction" when it comes to offspring.

>>14736560
I'm saying most people want children for purely vain reasons. What some people want is besides the point. What most people want is what shapes the society you live in.

[Anonymous No.14736604]

>>14735715

If we are to the point we’re mass practicing eugenics then we wouldn’t need a slave caste, we’d probably have widespread automation by then.

[Anonymous No.14736618]

>>14736588
What a significant, high iq section of society wants matters more than what the masses want. And we're not talking about "shaping society". We're talking about whether eugenics would work. It would and is going to.

And you're full of shit if you claim a parent would not choose to have a child 10 iq higher than them instead of equal if a fairy showed up and offered to wave a magic wand over the mother's belly.

[Anonymous No.14736647]

>>14736526
What influences the decisions people make? Point being that we're in a social project either way (we live in a society), and there are ways to incentivize/encourage eugenic behaviour that don't include instituting sterilization patrols.

You try to frame it like there's some neat boundary between one sort of 'playing god' and all the other technology we employ, and between individuals/society, but there isn't.

[Anonymous No.14736674]

>>14736618
>And you're full of shit if you claim a parent would not choose to have a child 10 iq higher than them instead of equal if a fairy showed up and offered to wave a magic wand over the mother's belly.
This isn't so hypothetical, women CAN do this in the West today. They don't. If women wanted more intelligent children they have access to the resources but they have children for other reasons.

>>14736647
Vanity and social prestige. You got to look at what society really rewards and it ain't a eugenic project.

[Anonymous No.14736687]

>>14734585

I think it should really only be used to eliminate severely undesirable traits. Because if you select for intelligence, beauty, character traits, athleticism, then you cast so small a net you’d run the risk of having your population be inbred. Not to mention it’s difficult to clarify what is a genetic trait and what’s a developed trait. Do we select people who are 130 IQ and above? Or 115? If we exclude people with a criminal background how do we know they weren’t in an unfortunate situation as opposed to being genetically inclined to criminality?

I say just take out the most undesirable traits like severe inheritable genetic diseases, extremely low intelligence, physical deformity. I don’t know how you’d forcibly sterilize people though without it being essentially torture. Perhaps mandatory genetic testing before marriage, education on genetic conditions to discourage people from reproducing, genetic screening of fetuses, free sterilization offered.

[Anonymous No.14736704]

>>14736674
Well if you think society is just a rudderless juggernaut, then you really shouldn't be concerned about what people think of active eugenics, should you?

[Anonymous No.14736705]

>>14734623
>Actually a practical implementation of eugenics would be something like sterilizing people with Huntington's disease
My family has Huntington's and whenever I suggest a eugenic solution they get furious with me. I don't get what the alternative is, there is no cure and there probably will never be a cure.

[Anonymous No.14736717]

>>14736674
they don't because it's a hassle and most of them aren't even aware the possibility exists. if it becomes cheap and easy people will do it. billionaires will probably already start doing this soon and it will normalize downward

i dunno why you're so fixated on the "reasons" people have children. you can pump out babies for whatever "reason" you want and still want the best for them. societal metrics of success correlate strongly with iq. everyone knows this even if they don't randomly start shouting it at you.
>hey honey i know we'd love our child to be a successful doctor but i think we should handicap them with mediocre genes for no reason since we didn't have them as a vanity project

[Anonymous No.14736718]

>>14736687
Offer people money in exchange for sterilization.
I guess it's mostly poor people who would sign up.

[Anonymous No.14736720]

>>14736705
I compliment your responsible thinking sir.

[Anonymous No.14736775]

>>14736717
It's way more ideological than just being a "hassle". Women aren't afraid of debt. They'll go into debt for much worse reasons than breeding a better tomorrow. Just taking out a loan and ordering some top quality sperm is a lot less of a hassle than dealing with a relationship or so you'd think from some commentary. The reason people have children is important from a Eugenic perspective because that's what's at issue.

[Anonymous No.14736798]

It’s scary how cold and utilitarian some of your views on life and childbirth are. I feel like I’m reading a discussion between antagonists from a politically dystopian novel.

[Anonymous No.14736812]

>>14736775
>Women aren't afraid of debt.
swiping your credit card while giggling at how jealous your friends will be of your new purse is easy. tracking down a clinic that will do this, fertilizing a bunch of potential children (probably with your husband, i don't know why you think this has to be mail order), having them dna tested, and having one implanted is not easy.

>The reason people have children is important from a Eugenic perspective because that's what's at issue.
what you're ignoring even after i explained it to you because you're in denial is that people will want their children to be successful even if that is not some singular "reason" they are having a child

[Anonymous No.14736819]

>>14736798
>It’s scary how cold and utilitarian some of your views on life and childbirth are. I feel like I’m reading a discussion between antagonists from a politically dystopian novel.

[Anonymous No.14736831]

>>14736289
Even if that child was also going to be a depressed manlet?

[Anonymous No.14736838]

>>14736687
Complex traits can only really be approached heuristically (look at the prospective parent) and it would be trivial to screen for relative consanguinity so as to preclude the possibility of an inbred populations. These aren't roadblocks in the least.

As for the criminality thing... Well, it would still work on the whole depite the few who fall through the cracks. I assume that extenuating circumstances would be considered in sentencing, as they already are. I doubt the kind of criminal we'd want to sterilize would have any justification for complaint, and sometimes innocents do get convicted pay a heavy price even now. It's part of the cost of dealing with crime in an imperfect world.

[Anonymous No.14736855]

>>14736798
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.14736857]

>>14736831
>no i'm so butthurt at the possibility to people are going to have babies that are superior to me that i'm going to assume intelligence must have a negative relation to other traits, that we will never figure this out, and that in this conversation "intelligence" hasn't been a stand in for "whatever traits you feel like optimizing"

[Anonymous No.14736870]

>>14734702
There really wasn't eugenics in Brave new World though. Wasn't it just pre natal alterations and conditioning?

[Anonymous No.14736874]

>>14736798
"Only the truly firm are truly gentle. In the rest, it is only weakness, which is readily converted into harshness." - La Rochefoucauld

[Anonymous No.14736885]

>>14736812
Most things in life aren't easy and in fact people get themselves into more complex pointless situations by their own choosing for dumb reasons. The grand majority of women who can pay up upfront for the best return in your calculations aren't doing it and aren't interested. It's not just the cost. It's ideological. Even if it was significantly much easier and cheaper it wouldn't change much because most people don't think like you. People claim they care about future generations but their actions are all that really matter.

[Anonymous No.14736936]

>>14736885
>Most things in life aren't easy
Like budgeting your money and thinking about the future. Which is why people don't do it and go into debt. Yes people will do hard things that would inevitably ruin their lives if they didn't. Great observation

>The grand majority of women who can pay up upfront for the best return in your calculations aren't doing it
>It's ideological
The grand majority of women haven't heard of or considered the possibility over their pregnancy, the grand majority of those that have think it would be a huge pain to go through the process as it is currently available, and the grand majority of everybody don't have strong philosophical convictions about anything.

Whatever. You and your fellow Luddites can convince yourself that virtually no one would want smart, tall, attractive children or adapt new technology. And the significant portion across all cultures and backgrounds that do will become superior to you.

[Anonymous No.14736961]

>>14736475
you need to see an ontologist

[Anonymous No.14737336]

>>14734600
>even 4chan is a form of castration
excellent post

[Anonymous No.14737449]

>>14736534
yes but roasties have shit taste and end up getting knocked up by retarded niggers instead of phd scientists.

[Anonymous No.14737481]

>>14736137
Is not hard, just kill every retard?

[Anonymous No.14737494]

>>14737481
that includes you, retard

[Anonymous No.14737507]

>>14735715
Eugenics isn't genetically modifying humans

[Anonymous No.14737562]

what differentiates selective breeding from eugenics? i see a lot of people on twitter saying that what we do to animals isn't eugenics but rather selective breeding, and their explanation for the difference seems to be that selective breeding concerns a non-human subject. which just seems like a semantic difference overall if we;re still modifying animals for certain parameters just as we might modify human genes to prevent some negative birth condition.
of course the effectiveness of current gene modification on humans is a whole other topic, and the chance of misfire on trying to correct some genetic defect that then results in some further horrific genetic defect is the primary reason to doubt the "wouldn't work in practice" line from Dawkins. the current efficacy of modifying human genes is not anywhere near as developed as it is for animals because of the complexity of the human genome.

[Anonymous No.14738132]

>>14736137
This is so fucking stupid. It's obvious that some humans are just genetically superior to other humans, why do we have to tiptoe around it.

[Anonymous No.14738143]

>>14734623
>the virgin biologist vs the chad Huntington's patient
lmao there's a reason they out reproduce the general population

[Anonymous No.14738153]

The elite have always bred among themselves and have no desire for competition. Any eugenics program would have no other aim than breeding more compliant cattle.

[Anonymous No.14738154]

>>14738132
because women are genetically programmed to create the safest possible enviorment for their offspring, and they don't know whose going to knock them up, so just to be safe they want to tolerate and accept everyone.

[Anonymous No.14738161]

>>14738132
I've traveled all around the world and I prefer living in shitholes
Spics and niggers are dumb animals compared to whites but at least they know how to have a socially integrated society
Eugenics in the hands of a white society would lead to an even more autistic psychopathic population than what we already have in America

[Anonymous No.14738167]

>>14738153
Genetic enhancement will probably be used by the elite to turn themselves into a race of Olympians that can't even breed with plebs anymore, though

[Anonymous No.14738179]

>>14734617
I'm against abortion but I'm on the fence when it comes to this. At the very least I agree with forced sterilization of the severely disabled.

[Anonymous No.14738270]

>>14738161
>drug dealers scaring population into silent obedience living in constant fear
>socially integrated society
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.14738309]

>>14736185
>why is it ok for two people to control the destiny of another but wrong tor a larger unit to do so?
Because those two will be the most resource-taxed by the raising of that child.

[Anonymous No.14738318]

>>14734670
Can you give me superpowers though is the question.

[Anonymous No.14738334]

>>14736137
>NOOOOOOOOOOO U CANT KNOW NUFFIN

[Anonymous No.14738345]

>>14736831
IQ is negatively correlated with depression

[Anonymous No.14738364]

I dunno about eugenics but sperm banks should show the IQ of the donors amongst other things.
Women could and would select a 130IQ 6 foot dude over anyone else.
If this ain't improving the gene pool I don't know what is.

[Anonymous No.14738372]

>>14738364
They already do the equivalent of this by making sure it's a doctor or whatever. The doctor is going to be both high IQ and also probably not an autist or mentally ill. At least he was functional enough to become a doctor anyway

[Anonymous No.14738398]

>>14738372
Hold up, what if I get an egg and sperm from 130IQ doctors and get a surrogate to give birth to it?
It's literally a designer baby, and I can more or less control for looks as well.
Imagine how many eggs goes down the toilet every year that could've made a genius tier baby. If I set up a company and we pay women to give us eggs they're not using and collect sperm from doctors and hire surrogates to birth the babies then we can make thousands of genius babies people can adopt without checking out their wife or husband at a sperm bank.
Did I just invent a potential multi billion dollar industry?

[Anonymous No.14738401]

>>14736420
Read Plato.

[Anonymous No.14738417]

>>14738398
kek. The government would never allow this but sure. One thing though is people do want the kid to be partly their dna most of the time, which your plan would ignore.

Does make you think about gene enhancing in general. If you 'enhance' your kid's genes enough it's not really your kid anymore is it.

[Anonymous No.14738430]

>>14734585
wtf im an atheist now

[Anonymous No.14738461]

>>14738417
They can choose between half or full designer baby, i.e. the kid inherits half their DNA but isn't as smart, or the kid is unrelated by blood but is a genius.
As for legality, this could totally work in China or SEA countries. The only difficult part is getting white doctors to come to Thailand and rub one out and donate eggs.

[Anonymous No.14738617]

>>14734585
State enforced eugenics is bad idea.
"But mankind domesticated crops and animals through our intelligence!"
Except this was a gradual and free process over millennia. None of which was centralized. State enforced eugenics will stagnate the genepool, and have many unintended consequences and paradoxical effects.

Genetic diversity is important to the survival of our population, especially in our current state. And I don't mean global diversity. I just mean the diversity we already see in each population pocket in the world.

Eschewing moral concerns for sake of argument, let's consider several truths.
Fitness is a description of an individual's ability to survive in an environment, and perhaps also to reproduce. That is, the individual, as exemplar of the species, is capable of sustaining life in a successive generation.
There is no objective scale of better fitness given by an absolute arbitrator. Either an individual survives and reproduces, or it doesn't.
The terms of fitness in a sense of evolution are descriptive. They are not statements of what ought to be, nor do they necessarily have applications in the realms of advancing human society. The reason for this is that the subjective markers or human achievement, like in the arts or sciences, do not correlate with reproductive success or better environmental fitness. Plenty of great scientists and thinkers were willfully celibate, other substantial people had their direct genetic line end with them while dying prematurely (Caesar, Alexander the Great). It seems stupid to apply these descriptive terms of reproductive success or environmental for what we consider in bettering human society, because we function more broadly than wild animals. Eugenicists often make woeful leaps in logic and consistency, to presume there's some great absolute of betterness that's found in standards of evolutionary biology that can be applied socially. But there really isn't.
So-called genetically or bodily unfit individuals, in the eugenics scheme, serve perfectly adequate functions in society, even if just implicit ones, or their disabilities become null factors, or even factors of success. Take Helen Keller, severely disabled, but her handicaps became her focal point of success, and an interesting point of study in how we understand our sense modalities. I think similar things can be said of other types, like mental retards and cripples. They've been demonstrated to be capable of doing various works and labors.
Also, as our medical technology progresses, there's no good pragmatic reason why we can't simply eradicate and alleviate certain human maladies, rather than just exterminate or sterilize the individual in question. Take some deadly immune disorder or disease. An individual can be otherwise normal and functional, even with a rare disease.

The only real class that this profits are industrialists and corporatists. Eliminating undesirables means profit margins might rise by a percentage.

[Anonymous No.14738683]

>>14738398
>If I set up a company and we pay women to give us eggs they're not using
Part of the result comes from the mother too.

[Anonymous No.14738716]

>>14738683
Yeah that's why the eggs would be from female doctors too.
I don't know how much of an effect the surrogate has on the baby though.

[Anonymous No.14738737]

>>14735563
I bet your government hasn't existed for more than 200 years either, little bitch

[Anonymous No.14738787]

>>14738737
Do Americans really?

[Anonymous No.14738813]

>>14734585
Sixteen generations of eugenics would accomplish less disease, but also more Eliot Rogers. And the Eliot Rogers would be way hotter. Men come to terms with their inceldom because they really are genetically inferior. If the gene playing field were leveled women would still be just as choosy and men wouldn't have tangible excuses for their exclusion.

[Anonymous No.14738852]

>>14734598
Hahaha Dilbertman made fun of someone for making this argument just this morning. Let me guess you're an artist of some form, that includes liberal arts student.

[Anonymous No.14738869]

>>14738813
This has already basically happened in rich white areas though and more broadly in general, think how hairy and disgusting women were 200k years ago.

[Anonymous No.14738886]

>>14736193
No you don't.

[Anonymous No.14738919]

What's the big deal. Women practice eugenics all the time

[Anonymous No.14738930]

Does Dawkins understand that humans aren't domesticated animals being harvested as food so it's a rather silly comparison?

[Anonymous No.14738996]

>>14738930
Do you even understand what he said in the tweet?
He was saying that it's possible to breed humans for certain characteristics but not that it should be done.
He mentioned cattle and other domesticated animals and crops because eugenics works on those things so it would work on humans who have the same biological characteristics i.e. eugenics works on cows because of how genetic inheritance works and humans have the same genetic inheritance characteristics so therefore it's possible to perform eugenics on humans.

[Anonymous No.14739553]

>>14734585
Sloterdijk's "Rules for the Human Zoo"

[Anonymous No.14740136]

>>14736415
Uh maybe if they're asked in an official survey they won't say it but exposed to the trash of humanity most people do agree with some kind of eugenics. Even if it's just neutering large feral families who won't do anything but have a heap of children, burden the state, and do drugs.

[Anonymous No.14740286]

>>14735657
The test is called a Nuchal Translucency, measuring via ultrasound the thickness of skin at the back of the neck and/or fluid collection visible there in downie foetuses

[Anonymous No.14740292]

>>14736687
>I don’t know how you’d forcibly sterilize people though without it being essentially torture

Radiation

[Anonymous No.14740364]

>>14734617
All women practice eugenics

[Anonymous No.14740648]

>>14734623
>or preventing two carriers of the allele from mating

Huntington's is autosomal dominant

[Anonymous No.14740692]

>>14736415
>Eugenics is a conscious project for improving the gene pool
Kinda like a taboo against incest? It's true that most people are retarded cattle who will automatically turn their brains off if they hear a word they were taught in high school is a mean nasty icky doubleplus ungood word but that shouldn't limit our ability to talk about it. "Eugenic" simply means good birth, almost everyone supports it in some way. Don't be autistic.

[Anonymous No.14741720]

>>14738161
>know how to have a socially integrated society
nigga is you serious?

[Anonymous No.14741722]

>>14738886
eww thailand and philines fuck a hoe for a 25$

[Anonymous No.14741733]

>>14738345
High IQ people would rarely admit to be depressed and have higher standards for what constitutes depression.

[Anonymous No.14741750]

>>14738132
Are you retarded? It is about singling out genes, clearly, because when have you seen two smart people ever give birth to a smart person because of that? Plenty of absolute degenerates that create highly intelligent people.

[Anonymous No.14742217]

>>14737562
I'd say the projects are different. When you're breeding animals you have more narrow aims. A eugenics project is more broad based.