🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:43:12 UTC No. 16092304
Is there an actual reason why Eugenics is seen as a pseudoscience that isn't "muh natzees", "fascists" and other snarl words?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:49:27 UTC No. 16092306
it's literally in the name you fucking retard
eu- = good
-genics = genes
good for whom? our arbitrary and unproven standards?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:51:06 UTC No. 16092307
>>16092304
Identical twins.
Yao Ming.
The many clones governments have produced.
It's crapshoot. No such thing as perfect genes.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 09:16:12 UTC No. 16092317
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 09:21:44 UTC No. 16092321
>>16092304
Humans have a natural eugenics regulator, like every other species. When conditions are too easy, the weak reproduce too much, that causes problems down the line that are only survived by the strong, etc.
But feel free to open an international chain of elite sperm clinics, Quick Jizz, over 20.000 locations. Peter Thiel might be an early investor
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 09:44:21 UTC No. 16092337
>>16092304
it's like communism, it can seem good on paper but at scale it always goes to shit
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 09:49:56 UTC No. 16092341
>>16092337
unlike communism eugenics has never been attempted. Closer thing nazis ever did in that regard was gassing and beating to death some drooling -5 IQ retards in asylums. Their racial laws did not test people for fitness or IQ, just ancestry.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:29:04 UTC No. 16092456
>>16092341
I think the emergence of genetic engineering will naturally cause an unorganized eugenics movement to rise based on the principles of capitalism.The more affordable and effective "designer babies" will become the more people will flock to it in an effort to protect their children from harm like genetic illness which will turn into the desire of giving them a headstart making them smarter, stronger, more attractive etc. against the other designer babies.
We can already see the start of this with libshits decrying the prenatal diagnostics of chromosomal abormalities causing an 'extinction' of downies but obviously the vast majority of parents are not going to raise a potato if they have the means to avoid it. Even if governments crack down on it, the rich will just have their enhanced children in other jurisdictions or off the books and their superior offspring will over time displace their inferior competitors as the gaps in their abilities widens.
Makes me hopeful what other kinds of undesirables will be removed from the genepool.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:46:53 UTC No. 16092476
>>16092304
Name one thing that's scientific about eugenics. inb4
>I like blonde people so everyone should be blonde
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:33:31 UTC No. 16092528
>>16092456
Designer babies are cuckoldry and risky as such technology is not proven and might take generations to know if it works. IVF has existed for 2 generations and people are finding out these babies might have some issues, like due to freezing sperm, embryos and who knows what else.
People prefer genetic engineering to IVF because they think they will only do minor changes to the DNA so the baby will still look like them, just better
But in that case, just get eggs and sperm from donors that look like you or that could pass as cousins
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:54:02 UTC No. 16092558
>>16092307
The point is not "perfect" genes, retard. The point is genes fit for a purpose such as health, intelligence etc.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:20:06 UTC No. 16092580
>>16092528
>Designer babies are cuckoldry
...
>just get eggs and sperm from donors that look like you
If you genuinely think that investing resources in the offspring of a stranger (not your own DNA) is preferable to modifying the DNA of ones own offspring (your own DNA) you desperately need to learn what evolution is and how it works before you waste more electricity spewing this kind of nonsense into a discussion.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:41:06 UTC No. 16092600
>>16092304
Eugenics is good. The nazis really fucked up and now nobody will take it seriously. So rather than try to convince other people it's a good thing, which basically isn't going to happen in the current social climate, I've instead decided to take myself out of the gene pool. I think it's all I can really do to help out. My genes are below average and it's led to me having a below average life, they don't need to be part of humanity.
Cult of Passion at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:43:52 UTC No. 16092601
>>16092306
>good for whom?
Those who act with certainty.
>our arbitrary and unproven standards?
Then you measure is arbitrary and standards unset.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:51:51 UTC No. 16092610
>>16092476
>scientific
A weird way to frame this, the mechanisms of eugenics are based on genetics, are you implying genetics are fundamentally unscientific? Whether or not it's sensible or usefull is a different question. Reducing the frequenzy of carriers for lethal congenital disease seems sensible, no? Ashkenazim jews have been using eugenics to get their Tay Sachs numbers down with noticable success. Isn't that a sensible use of eugenics, to spare families from having children that will inevitably die a pretty horrible death at a young age? There are worlds between obvious uses like these and breeding aryan supersoldiers
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:54:40 UTC No. 16092614
>>16092304
>>16092306
It's funny how everywhere else that talks about this has to include "racism" in the same sentence
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:57:56 UTC No. 16092618
>down syndrome might be cured and wiped off the gene pool
SO???
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:01:42 UTC No. 16092621
>>16092580
evolution's all about the long game, its not just important for you to pass on your genes, but your kids, and your kids kids etc have to as well (otherwise you never actually passed on your genes). Unless you're not genetically perfect, It's unlikely that passing on your genes 100% is in your genetic best interest. Hypothetically, if you could clone yourself and pass on 100% of your genes, that still be worse then if you could clone, lets say 90% of your genes, but the 10% be modified to genetically healthier, (more desirable phenotypes, improved health), you'd be better off cloning the second even if it's less genetically similar to you.
>If you genuinely think that investing resources in the offspring of a stranger (not your own DNA) is preferable to modifying the DNA of ones own offspring (your own DNA)
I mean to say, (i'm not the other person or fully agreeing with them), but if you lost the genetic lottery, and likely the women that you're with too, lol, even if you could fluke having a kid, that just means your bloodline would likely end with them (and if they fluked a kid, the same), at the least if someone that was the same race as you happened to be somewhat genetically similar to you (they look like you for example), Mathematically it could work out better for you to be kin selected (kin selection doesn't necessarily have to happen with ancestrally related to them, by chance strangers could happen to have high levels of genetic similarity) and cuck raise their kid, so you're at least passing on some of your genes that you share with the (stranger and) kid, assuming if the kid overall was genetically healthy.
obviously you're right and in most cases raising your own kid is in your interests, just not always, expecially one was an almost genetic dead and and you have to salvage what you can.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:02:44 UTC No. 16092624
>>16092456
>>16092618
downies already don't have babies. Killing them isn't going to remove them from the gene pool, they're already out. in the off chance that one actually manages to have a downie of their own, It is one again, most certainly the case that downie wont be able to pass down any more downie genes down.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:05:26 UTC No. 16092625
>>16092580
>If you genuinely think that investing resources in the offspring of a stranger (not your own DNA) is preferable to modifying the DNA of ones own offspring (your own DNA)
Its the same thing.
If you modify your DNA then it isnt your DNA anymore.
So just get donor DNA that was already almost identical to yours, like from some cousin that was healthier, smarter and overall better than you but not a complete stranger
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:46:15 UTC No. 16092667
>>16092601
I'm sure it made sense in your mind
Cult of Passion at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:03:37 UTC No. 16092683
>>16092667
His morality is in question, even unto himself, and sees no guidence from his external world, a rudderless ship.
Im sure you win all the denates youre in if youre too dumb to comprehend how BTFO you are...
[pat pat]
...myeah, I know...
[pat pat]
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:21:53 UTC No. 16092697
>>16092304
It was the sterilization of those seen as "unfit." I don't think there's much of a problem with attempting positive eugenics, like making sure very "fit" people have lots of children.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:22:48 UTC No. 16092699
>>16092304
>is seen as a pseudoscience
Except that it's not a pseudoscience, but just a very ethically questionable practice, as well as hard to control.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:55:05 UTC No. 16092735
>>16092621
In my scenario someone who is lost the genetic lottery has the opportunity to make sure their offspring are not such a loser as they are (provided they find someone to carry that offspring, or they use a surrogate since being an ugly manlet still would not make it impossible for them to amass a fortune of material wealth). Now one generation later the offspring of this person is better off than if they were conceived naturally or not at all. Extrapolate this scenario to society at large and over time humanity continuously grows stronger, smarter and whatever other improvements they can find.
On your cousin argument lets say my cousin shares 20% of the uniquely human genes. From a genetic evolutionary perspective it would of course be more advantageous to my genes to invest my resources into their offspring than to someone from an ethnicity half way across the world but still less advantage to a designer baby that shares all of my genes minus the few dozen or so that made me a wheelchair bound, blind, balding manlet with a cleft lip. Keep in mind in the original post it was about what the wider public would most likely do and not posters in this thread specifically. There are thousands and thousands of couples that have fertility issues and opt to go for IVF and other expensive procedures rather than adopting a child from an orphanage or foster home.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:04:36 UTC No. 16092744
>>16092625
>If you modify your DNA then it isnt your DNA anymore.
So you make no difference between a child of yours that shares 50% of DNA with you and a clone of yours that shares 100% its DNA with you except having had a gene inactivated making it less susceptible to breast cancer?
As your biological age advances your DNA transscription process will become more prone to errors so you would not consider those cells as yours?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:15:36 UTC No. 16092760
>>16092304
Eugenics = Astrology
Genetic Engineering = Astronomy
Cult of Passion at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:27:25 UTC No. 16092780
>>16092760
>Genetic Engineering
Try BioPhysics, you days of Molecular Hegemony are over!
https://youtu.be/5ChRM4CEWyg
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:30:21 UTC No. 16092789
>>16092304
>Is there an actual reason why Eugenics is seen as a pseudoscience
Just that inferior/defective people realize eugenics would mean the end of people like them.
It's similar to the reason that ugly women want to ban the concept of beauty and liberals want to ban the concept of intelligence.
Cult of Passion at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:31:15 UTC No. 16092790
>>16092760
>Eugenics = Organic
Organic = Nature
Nature = Physics Efficiency
All you base systems are mine.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:34:33 UTC No. 16092804
>>16092304
For eugenics to be implemented, by definition it must pose limitations, restrictions, or disincentives on different groups for rearing young, which people in any demographic will aspire to do. Without the obvious implications of any bias in this system, it must be inequal, and thus, inhumane.
Cult of Passion at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:34:46 UTC No. 16092806
>>16092789
Yes, their "reward/action/payment," part of their brain gets hijacked by a small piece of the system. How and why people can become fixated on humiliation, emotional displays, down to fecal and BDSM sex.
The self induced neurochemicals manifest into laws and legistlation, its incredible to see the direct line of it.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:35:49 UTC No. 16092808
>>16092600
Thanks for your sacrifice, Anon. My thousands of descendants will appreciate it
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:16:07 UTC No. 16093376
>>16092304
No, it's taboo because it opens the door to questions of race and intelligence and inevitably leads to the conclusion that blacks are intellectually inferior.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 11:47:45 UTC No. 16094088
>>16092790
>Genetic engineering is not organic!!
ok, how do viruses change your dna then? or radiation? is it not natural?
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:54:20 UTC No. 16094473
>>16092337
That's a disingenuous dismissal of eugenics. Your scare tactic of "eugenics means le heckin genocide like da nazis!" is as retarded as lumping basic social security together with communist gulag camps. First off, there is a whole host of eugenic policies that are non-violent. Second, the alternative to eugenics is dysgenics, which is a much worse practice in the long term.
>>16092618
You are more retarded than a downsie yourself if you think abortion of downs is a eugenic policy. It has zero eugenic effect on the germline, in fact it may even have a dysgenic effect insofar as it removes one disincentive for having children later in life, which is associated not only with higer risk of downs babies but also other negative genetic outcomes.