Eugenics, can we have a serious conversation, in this day, in this age?

Is it good that eugenics is taboo?

  • Yes, it is dangerous

    Votes: 23 19.0%
  • Yes, it is autistic

    Votes: 30 24.8%
  • Yes, other reason

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • No, it's just science

    Votes: 29 24.0%
  • No, despite that it is dangerous

    Votes: 7 5.8%
  • No, it's only taboo so it can be implemented beyond public view

    Votes: 4 3.3%
  • No, other reason

    Votes: 4 3.3%
  • Maybe, I am a radical centrist and will oppertunisticly snipe at both sides, I am superior

    Votes: 23 19.0%

  • Total voters
    121
Are race specific dating sites a kind of eugenics?

https://www.latinamericancupid.com/
https://www.whitewomenblackmendating.com/
https://www.asiandating.com/
https://www.jdate.com/
https://www.whitedate.net/


What do you mean by eugenics because I don't understand how it translated to two humans having kids. eugenics IIRC had the problem that it established a value system based on genetics that did not fit with what we know of evolution

Instead of quibbling over defintions, let's discuss concepts. Would eugenics based on a value system in accordance with what we know of evolution be desirable?

Should a eugenics project be guided what we perceive to be natural, what we perceive to be desirable or what we perceive to be responsible?
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: littlearmalite
x9rq9s2wjiq31.png
That's the skull of a pug, a creature created by humans selectively breeding dogs. I am almost 100% certain that any aspiring eugenicists will, over a long-term timescale, create something equally or more fucked up.

Fuck that noise.
 
I know I was blown away by it as well but it has been steadily rolling along since the Obama years and it is all out in the open. There is some stunning dissonance in American culture.

damn son, I'm not saying I don't believe you, but this is some interesting shit. You got any specifics to look further into this?
 
I've never really understood why there is such a desire on moderators part to not allow things in their seperate thread, as you will end up having very different discussions when it is framed differently in the OP.

As to answer why to the mod:

IMG_20200806_051116.png


Besides the point I make above, unlike mods, users can't add polls, unless they're making a new thread.


This OP is poorly spelled, poorly formatted and poorly received. I reckon that this thread merge will quickly make the topic run dry. We'll see how right or wrong I am based on the amount of posts after this one.
 
Last edited:
Forced eugenics is bad. Most forced things are. The best way to implementation would be a non-governmental program or movement promoting better breeding practices.

The majority of societies ailments are caused by pop culture and media. The problems those have caused are multifaceted. Men are demoralized because women have become whores. Women have become whores because men have decided having a whore is better than no one at all. Women know its okay to act like whores now because they can get a beta or simp to take them on after having tyrone, muhammed, paco, and charlie chan. It's a viscous cycle. But how did we get here? In short, the sexual revolution. Granted there was rumblings of this before, but none went so far or did as much damage as the 60s.

Even before WWII ended the commies realized that America would or could be a big problem, so the Soviets started brainstorming how to take down a country that was for all intents and purposes unbeatable in a ground war. They ended up with a few tactics. Ideological Subversion is the one that has had the longest lasting and most profound effect. How do you kill the iron colossus? From within. "Empower" women, break down the family unit, and poison the youth with insanity. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, the program became autonomous and has been perpetuating itself in schools and media; the two biggest influences, ever since.

The soviets had been pouring money into hollywood from the 50s on up to the late 80s just before the fall of the Iron Curtain, and were pumping marxist teachers into schools just as long. This has given us what we have today. This bullshit KGB tactic has ruined several generations of Americans which has in turn infected the rest of the western world and is creeping beyond it. To uproot something so ingrained in our world would seem to be a monumental taks, but it seems to be happening naturally. Slowly, but naturally. Seeing the insanity of the subverted left, normies are starting to reject such things, leaning more towards traditional values which have historically kept a society homogeneous and well functioning. However this process would be very slow and could be halted because "good enough is good enough" for most normies, allowing a few of the roots of Ideological Subversion to remain thus starting the cycle again.

A program making normies aware of what eugenics is, how it works, and what it can do would do well to make them more aware of the consequences of rampant promiscuity, the perils of outbreeding, which would in turn maybe lead to being more aware of what traits they possess, what they would want to pass on, and what kind of life their child could have.

Forgot links




https://web.archive.org/web/2020020...caldiversity.com/articles/Williamson, David. "Students%20of%20mixed%20races%20report%20suffering%20more%20health%20problems."%20UNC%20News%20Services%2C%20Oct.%2030%2C%202003.pdf

 
  • Autistic
Reactions: ZombiefiedFerret
I've never really understood why there is such a desire on moderators part to not allow things in their seperate thread, as you will end up having very different discussions when it is framed differently in the OP.

As to answer why to the mod:

View attachment 1498982

Besides the point I make above, unlike mods, users can't add polls.


This OP is poorly spelled, poorly formatted and poorly received. I reckon that this thread merge will quickly make the topic run dry. We'll see how right or wrong I am based on the amount of posts after this one.
I was wondering why people were talking to you like you were the OP.
The OP is shit. I agree this should be it's own thread.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Lemmingwise
Eugenics isn't machine gunning the disabled, nor is it preventing the poor from breeding. Galton and Lynn later were pretty specific about this; it is to stop the degradation of the centre towards negative traits by preventing the outbreeding of the positive traits by negative ones.

At it's base eugenics is simply: Is it preferable to have the most intelligent, most attractive and most beneficial members of society produce more children with each other than the least beneficial. No sane person would argue that it isn't (Unless you want a tard thunderdome, in which case it would be). Eugenics should be encouraged; but a eugenic society is a patriarchal one. Without the traditional family, without strong leadership and strong direction for society any eugenic policies would simply be pissing in the wind.
 
Maybe we do. People would pay good money for that shit
I mean I can see it. I've worked with a sped once and when it wasn't really sad it was really funny. There was one time where he kept missing the ball in baseball and another kid went 'haha his brain works bad' and without missing a beat the tard threw his bat like it was Thors hammer and nailed the other kid in the head; then screamed 'MY BRAIN DO WORK GOOD!' and ran away screaming the word faggot at the top of his malformed lungs.

Shit was funny, and sad.
 
Is it preferable to have the most intelligent, most attractive and most beneficial members of society produce more children with each other than the least beneficial. No sane person would argue that it isn't.
I don't know much of genetic and biology.Just getting it out of the way in case my questions amateur and stupid but I'm really curious about somethings.
1) Aren't there multiple types of intelligence?How would you decide which is most important when making a eugenics program?
2) when talking about attractiveness there are multiple forms of attraction so what do you mean most attractive? Also isn't attractiveness both social and biological meaning you would have to find out which are attractive because of biologically not social conditioning?
3) How would you decide who most beneficial the person to society? what is your measuring stick? who makes the most people happy? most technological advancements under their belts?
4) how would the program weigh the variables? what if someone is "attractive" but not intelligent and/or beneficial?
5) What high level of something things like intelligence, attractiveness, and how beneficial becomes less "desirable" to nature should we continue with breeding with those traits
it is to stop the degradation of the centre towards negative traits by preventing the outbreeding of the positive traits by negative ones.
The problem I see with this is you are trying to decide negative and positive traits when most of the time it is dependent on situation or nature. To clarify what I mean is being highly intelligent could now be seen as a positive but if some catastrophe occurs where food is scarce intelligence becomes less beneficial because it requires high levels of calorie with not enough benefits. I guess to sum it up I feel like it would pigeon hole humans as a whole by limiting diversity and lead to bad outcome for humans continued existence as a species on earth and if possible in other planets in the future.

Unless you want a tard thunderdome
Tard thunderdome = Kiwi Farms
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: ZombiefiedFerret
Back