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

[JEB!]

I'm 100% against it. Any modern western government would completely fuck up their test subjects beyond repair.

1. you would need to give a govt hyper authoritarian powers to police it. This couldn't be done in a democracy, because the current party would just say that their political opponents are the subhuman and would work to sterilize them (think moviebob)
2. what people consider "the ubermensch" varies (think moviebob again)
3. going simply off current IQ tests for intelligence would also likely end in disaster. I've been around many academics who are extremely knowledgeable about their field of research, but fucking clueless about everything else in life. People don't pick a mate simply because they scored really fucking high in a test
4. ideal traits of beauty vary between country, time and culture. Think of what germany considered the ideal phenotype in the 1930s (blonde nordic looking guy) and what it would probably pick now ("syrian" guy from the congo or a german/congo mutt).

nah, I'll pass.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Eugenics is the restoration of Darwinian selection; the most suitable will breed, the least suitable will not. Whatever comes out of that is whatever comes out of that.

But that is always happening. For our current environment, the most suitable are having the most children. How do you know they are the most suitable? Because they are having the most children.

Yes, that's a circular argument. But that's the logic behind persuing darwinian results. That's what leads animals to evolve being ever able to graze the grass closer to the surface until they develop such a grazing anility that they destroy the grass' ability to replenish.

Right now we are selecting for people with extremist mindsets. Far lefties and far righties are having a lot of children, but they're just about the only ones to do so. What will that do if it holds up for 2 - 3 generations?

----

I'm also surprised that everyone views it in a kind of all or nothing kind of government venture (with all problems involved).

Then conversely there is the mention of vasectomies.

I guess, I had not fully thought things through. I guess I had some idea of having opt in groups, the way people opt in to be donors, but I guess this comes with such incredible problems that it is pretty unfathomable. You quickly arrive at an outside authority telling people how they can and can't breed. Hmmm. I guess it is the most fundamental of our functions and therefor in some sense the most sancrosanct.

I thought about opt-in orgs or experiments, but it's hard to imagine that being practical in any sense.

On the other hand it does seem like a shame to have various unique phenotypes dissappear, whether that's native americans, african pygmy's or other groups.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

But that is always happening. For our current environment, the most suitable are having the most children. How do you know they are the most suitable? Because they are having the most children. Yes, that's a circular argument. But that's the logic behind persuing darwinian results. That's what leads animals to evolve being ever able to graze the grass closer to the surface until they develop such a grazing anility that they destroy the grass' ability to replenish.

But we aren't having the most suitable breed for our current environment. Our current environment breeds the most unsuitable that are needed to maintain itself; which will in time lead to a regression and damage to the character of the people. No different than if were to artificially kill off certain members of a species; or induce different colours of carrot.

We are not under naturally selective pressures, we are under artificial selective pressures that deviate from success. Eugenics would seek to restore or imitate Darwinian pressure.

I do see your point; and I do agree that the suitability argument is fairly circular if it's just applied to a 'has children' but that's not all it is. This difference is even as far back as The Origin of The Species chapter 4 where it's said.
"Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection."
But it's also a pretty arbitrary definition as well since fucking ants can engage in the artificial selection of other organisms.
I will admit I have certain biases towards certain eugenic policies, but I will also state that there is a difference between naturally selective pressures and a artificial ones; and that we are not undergoing natural selection, and arguably have not been since the first instances of modern medicines.

Right now we are selecting for people with extremist mindsets. Far lefties and far righties are having a lot of children, but they're just about the only ones to do so. What will that do if it holds up for 2 - 3 generations?

Genopolitics is a really weird subject and I haven't really read much on it. I imagine that you might see a rebellious phase?

I'm also surprised that everyone views it in a kind of all or nothing kind of government venture (with all problems involved).
Then conversely there is the mention of vasectomies.
I guess, I had not fully thought things through. I guess I had some idea of having opt in groups, the way people opt in to be donors, but I guess this comes with such incredible problems that it is pretty unfathomable. You quickly arrive at an outside authority telling people how they can and can't breed. Hmmm. I guess it is the most fundamental of our functions and therefor in some sense the most sancrosanct.
I thought about opt-in orgs or experiments, but it's hard to imagine that being practical in any sense.

I mean previously it was other humans competing with each other that was our natural selection; where the ones that won got to fuck the women and have the most kids. Now our social conflict has been separated and set negatively against fertility.

Only way I can imagine solving that would be an artificial incentive to make the successful breed and the non successful not breed. To be a success in the modern world you have to make money and essentially have a good career, to do that in a two person household both of you have to put aside your best child bearing years (men should also not be having kids when they're 45) and focus on the career part. Maybe do what Hungary are doing and give out financial incentives for the middle class to have children; selectively give out free childcare/fertility treatments in better off catchment areas; encourage the poor to put off having children through social programs.

A eugenic society wouldn't be a particularly pleasant place to live if you were unsuccessful in the world of education, work or social circles. When we were under the effects of Natural selection (as we are in a few still existing tribes that have been studies) anywhere between 50-68% of men did not even have children, let alone multiple.

EDIT: I should also clarify that I don't want anyone to get fucked over, or to end up with dead babies or gas chambers. I am doing a degree in Genetics because I want to help people, I want to do medicine with the intention of making life better for people. If it were a choice between a eugenic society and undoing the progress we have made to make life easier, and longer for the severely ill or those born with congenital issues then i'd choose to keep the progress.

This for me is purely blue sky theory.

 

[Xarpho]

I'm of the opinion that since World War II, certain ideas were turned "bad" simply because Hitler pushed them, including pointing out influence of Jews in the media and entertainment, race-based nationalism, and eugenics. Obviously, I'm not saying that eugenics are always good and we should force sterilizations/abortions on people that the government finds "bad", but people with severe mental/physical deficiencies from birth are still being born, and are just drains on society/schools/the health system while being paraded around on social media/TLC/etc. while words like "brave" and "beautiful" are being thrown around for the purposes of feels and exploitation money.

 

[Daddy's Little Kitten]

I'm pretty sure this has been said but I'm not gonna waste my time but if we kill the retards, there wouldn't be any to laugh at and life would be very sad.

 

[Niggaplease]

But we aren't having the most suitable breed for our current environment. Our current environment breeds the most unsuitable that are needed to maintain itself; which will in time lead to a regression and damage to the character of the people. No different than if were to artificially kill off certain members of a species; or induce different colours of carrot.

We are not under naturally selective pressures, we are under artificial selective pressures that deviate from success. Eugenics would seek to restore or imitate Darwinian pressure.

I do see your point; and I do agree that the suitability argument is fairly circular if it's just applied to a 'has children' but that's not all it is. This difference is even as far back as The Origin of The Species chapter 4 where it's said.
"Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the co-adaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection."
But it's also a pretty arbitrary definition as well since fucking ants can engage in the artificial selection of other organisms.
I will admit I have certain biases towards certain eugenic policies, but I will also state that there is a difference between naturally selective pressures and a artificial ones; and that we are not undergoing natural selection, and arguably have not been since the first instances of modern medicines.

Genopolitics is a really weird subject and I haven't really read much on it. I imagine that you might see a rebellious phase?


I mean previously it was other humans competing with each other that was our natural selection; where the ones that won got to fuck the women and have the most kids. Now our social conflict has been separated and set negatively against fertility.

Only way I can imagine solving that would be an artificial incentive to make the successful breed and the non successful not breed. To be a success in the modern world you have to make money and essentially have a good career, to do that in a two person household both of you have to put aside your best child bearing years (men should also not be having kids when they're 45) and focus on the career part. Maybe do what Hungary are doing and give out financial incentives for the middle class to have children; selectively give out free childcare/fertility treatments in better off catchment areas; encourage the poor to put off having children through social programs.

A eugenic society wouldn't be a particularly pleasant place to live if you were unsuccessful in the world of education, work or social circles. When we were under the effects of Natural selection (as we are in a few still existing tribes that have been studies) anywhere between 50-68% of men did not even have children, let alone multiple.

EDIT: I should also clarify that I don't want anyone to get fucked over, or to end up with dead babies or gas chambers. I am doing a degree in Genetics because I want to help people, I want to do medicine with the intention of making life better for people. If it were a choice between a eugenic society and undoing the progress we have made to make life easier, and longer for the severely ill or those born with congenital issues then i'd choose to keep the progress.

This for me is purely blue sky theory.

Because in the time of natural selection not a lot of people lived past a certain age, shit even child mortality was a thing. What your proposing is to not let a certain type of people breed because of the character of society is fucked, when you fail to realize it's not just the hood rats and welfare queens at fault but the idiots in power who care nothing about votes in exchange for gibs. If you fail in not realizing that then even if you constructed the master race, your still doomed to fail because you didn't kill the cancer that causes it.
Besides eugenics being fucking retarded no one will rightfully agree to such absurdity.

 

[Lonely Grave]

Hell no. Eugenics is like use of nuclear weapons - humanity did it once and we swore never again, lest we create a demographic time-bomb like the one China is currently suffering right now. Even if eugenics as a policy was implemented in easy stages first any success could be misconstrued as a success and not merely a fluke. Until humanity becomes a space-faring race with a strong need to adapt to otherworldly environments, eugenics will never be on the table.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

We regard people as children, we believe they will follow what the government says and does until death. This is false, eugenics is not easy, it will take people through hardship pain, but scientific revelation after scientific revelation we are realizing that it is actually better for us. The tide is turning, it is time for humanity to rise, the eugenic road will lead us to the glorious years.

Listen, winds are changing and as we learn more about our genetics it is clearer that there is no reason to implement eugenics because it is bad.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Every effort to implement eugenics has ended in tragedy. It's as much an utopian pipe dream as communism. It even led to one of the unholy trinity of US Supreme Court rulings.

Scott v. Sanford

Korematsu v. United States

And for Eugenics,

Buck v. Bell.

Anyone who looks up the story behind Buck v. Bell should come away from it never supporting eugenics. Assuming the Nazi program didnt convince them first.

Fun story about the Unholy Trinity. None of them have been since reversed. Because all three are considered such raging embarrassments no lawyer has dared to cite them or advance their arguments. So the Supreme Court has no opportunity to undo them. Though in the case of the Dredd Scott decision, the ruling was made moot by hundreds of thousands dead Americans and two constitutional amendments implement by outright violence and total war.

 

[Tiny Clanger]

But eugenics in its proper meaning covers a whole fuckload more of inert or neutral characteristics, plus some entirely beneficial ones and is, in a positive way, already being practiced.

And eugenics in its proper meaning is nothing to do with this illiterate wall of text. I mean, I'd select out anybody who can't use an apostrophe, so...

Book. Read it.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

There are fucking tax credits available for those that want to destroy white towns and enclaves.

Okay.. Source?

 

[TFT-A9]

I approve of eugenics. It would have prevented OP from existing, and thus making this thread.

 

[Tiny Clanger]

Okay.. Source?

That's why I gave him a handy-dandy pictorial guide to A Book (aren't I nice?) for when he realises to CoNsPIR4cYreTaRDs.com isn't actually a source.

(Sigh....I fear that will be never. But you know me, eternally fluffy and optimistic. I have hope. Unfounded, wildly inappropriate and unguarded hope that Alex Jones here can transcend.)

 

[EmuWarsVeteran]

Just to clarify; so I'm not misrepresenting you, and you're not misrepresenting me.
You are saying that there is an extremely high correlation between success in society and being literally (as in medically) retarded? That the traits that would lead you to be successful in society are the same traits that make a person retarded? I would...like, to hear some example which you can provide.

Because currently what I have said is that eugenics should be adopted in the form proposed by Galton, Lynn, et al to encourage the successful within society to have more children as intelligence, attractiveness and health are all incredibly heritable and that currently success within society breeds negative fertility.

That is my argument in full. Which part of that exactly, do you disagree with and why?

No. You're just objectively wrong. The premise of a Eugenic society is not inbreeding. It has nothing to do with inbreeding. Inbreeding is when you increase consanguinity; which would be very hard to do in a eugenic society when you are aiming for a larger fertility rate among what is the middle classes over the poor; the result of that would yes be an immediate shrinkage of the poor...which would then shrink the middle class as well into the poor, and the least successful would not have children while the most successful would. All eugenics is, is natural selection but by human hand; it is the rewarding of success with fertility through artificial means rather than allowing it to happen naturally because humans are no longer naturally selected.

Wealth in society is inheritable yes; putting aside the issue of multi generational wealth loss in the middle class, the fact that the wealthy have such low fertility makes the impact of wealth inheritance so massive. If they had more kids, they'd be giving less to each child. Conversely if the poorest had less children they would be able to give more to each child.

This is literally what Galton - the man who invented Eugenics (along with Darwin) - said:
Page 17, Inquiries into Human Faculty and it's development.
'a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had”
It is, word for word; the process of natural selection undertaken by humans.
It is not:
Shooting the disabled.
Fucking your sister.
Breeding for specific genes.
Breeding for specific individual traits.
Breeding for mutant big brains (that post was also insane btw)
Breeding for specific philosophies.
Breeding for anything other than success with society.

It is a notation of the trend within modern society where success is correlated with low fertility which is an inversion of the selective pressure humans have up until now been subject to. Further it is a proposal to reverse this trend by incentivising the successful to have more children.

Not unless you presuppose that humans are all these blank slate units and that wealth from the middle classes does not recirculate. Neither of which is true.


The other kiwis 'explanation' was both not an explanation and also wrong. There will always be people at the bottom of a success hierarchy yes that is correct. That's about all that is correct; the purpose is not to stop the poorest from breeding, it is to flip the imbalance of fertility when ratio'd against success. The encouragement of the successful to breed and the discouragement of the least successful to breed.

What you are saying is literal bullshit. It's pop science nonsense.

Selective Breeding is ALWAYS an exercice in Inbreeding you fucking mong. Scientists and farmers are both extremely aware of this and routinely mix outside individuals into their experiment's gene pools to avoid another "mouse utopia". By definition, Eugenics involves restricting a large segment of the gene pool from reproducing, and having the smallest segment of society produce most children. No matter how you go about it, this spells disaster.

It was tried here in spain btw. Under the Francoist regime and since Primo families of the higher class in certain areas bred only within their social status. Wanna know what happened? They had to steal babies from the poor families because they drove themselves to infertility that's what happened. Not that they were opposed to stealing children, they had already started during the war for indoctrination, but the point here is the infertility. Others have already mentioned how this ended in america and the rest of europe. It never ends well. It always ends in either infertility or severe mutations.

And yes I am saying that traits which also make you successful will derive in retardation. This is for two reasons, first, because in biology everything is a compromise, too much of a good thing is bad. More concretely, many traits which are good for heterocygotes or involve similar genes can turn really bad for homocygotes or divert too many resources and break other mechanisms too much when multiple of those similar genes coincide. Secondly, genes aren't selected in a vaccuum during selective breeding. They are selected along every other gene around them. Meaning mutations which cause severe issues due to, for instance, loss of function can easily ride "good traits" and appear in homocygotes, causing severe genetic issues.

This is ok and only affects a small portion of the gene pool so long as you don't select for them. But if you artificially shorten the gene pool it's gonna hurt you dearly. As it has many times in the past. Ever hears of feudal europe? Precolombine tribes? The Pharaohs? Arabic Lords? The Chinese Empire? Time and time again the most successful within their society tried to select for themselves. Time and time again this ended in retardation and infertility. Inbreeding is like that, it's that simple.

No.

When I talk about artificially causing higher fertility I am talking about traits that are already being selected for in terms of success but are not then being passed on due to the correlation of lower fertility with higher success. This also holds true world wide, with the poorest nations having massively high fertility compared to the richest.

What I am proposing is natural selection. Darwinian selection. We have avoided it since we industrialised because we have no had to deal with it. Eugenics is the restoration of Darwinian selection; the most suitable will breed, the least suitable will not. Whatever comes out of that is whatever comes out of that.

The traits that the evidence I have seen suggest we will select for are intelligence, social charisma, beauty and robust health. If it also selects for a big a head then the people with the big heads will undergo natural selection and if it turns out the big heads make them live long, healthy, successful lives with other bigheads then they will produce children and the trait will continue.

Or they'll die; and the trait will not continue.



Do you mean that the big head people would be born earlier? If so maybe? It may be that success is linked with big heads and big birth canals. Or the women die, and the big head people don't get to breed. If your child dies from a disease in a modern hospital then your child was extremely premature and sickly. It would be sad; but it would also prevent the traits that led to the child dying from being passed on from that child.

What I am describing is the process of evolution. It is not controversial science; the controversy is that humans for the past few hundred/thousand years have been chipping away at the hold that natural selection has one us. Eugenics is the proposition to restore that hold to ensure that those who are successful breed; and those who are not do not.

You are not describing evolution. What you described is "darwinism", a political current that was firmly regarded as pseudoscientific drivel by Darwin himself. Evolution DOES NOT differenciate between "good" and "bad" traits. Only between traits that are "fit for the environment" and traits that aren't. It has no illusions of traits being objectively desirable independent of environment.

This is why it works via PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM. Meaning long periods of slow to null evolution being punctuated by periods in which new sellective pressures cause rapid evolution. That's why crocodiles and sharks have stayed nearly the same for so long.

Evolution works by extinction events so to speak. And humanity has already had theirs. It was called the Bronze Age Collapse. A seismic event caused eartquakes to partially destroy cities all over eurasia, followed by the gases freed causing severe droughts, rising temperatures and fires, this caused a massive multicultural tide of riding refugees to start around sicily and grow in power extremely throughout mycinean greece and raid all of the eastern mediterranean until collapsing against egypt. We're already so fit even what previously caused mass extinctions only caused us to grow stronger by giving rise to carthage and the roman empire. We won. There is no reason to suspect the need for artificial pressure. It is just not something that we need anymore. Because our evolution is now in the term of tools and systems. And it is extremely noticeable.

We didn't just stop feeling natural sellection since we industrialized. We stopped feeling natural sellection at the fucking ice age! Tools beat nature, that is the power of humanity.

And that's why our current gig is pretty good. If an extinction event that can actually knock us out comes, we won't know what genes will help the most. Because of this, the larger the gene pool, the better. Within punctuated equilibrium if you have no natural pressure the best deal you can have is NO pressure. Better not select and let diversity of environmental factors create as many different traits as possible than applying pressure, shorten your genotipic and fenotipic pools and if a real pressure comes you're now fucked. Not that it matters at this point outside of plagues like corona. But since Eugenics constantly backfire due to severe side effects and even if it went well it would only hurt us, why even fucking try it again?! What you're spouting isn't blue sky theory, it's ancient pseudoscientific drivel.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Okay.. Source?

That's why I gave him a handy-dandy pictorial guide to A Book (aren't I nice?) for when he realises to CoNsPIR4cYreTaRDs.com isn't actually a source.

(Sigh....I fear that will be never. But you know me, eternally fluffy and optimistic. I have hope. Unfounded, wildly inappropriate and unguarded hope that Alex Jones here can transcend.)

It has already been linked in the thread

 

[Crankenstein]

Selective Breeding is ALWAYS an exercice in Inbreeding you fucking mong. Scientists and farmers are both extremely aware of this and routinely mix outside individuals into their experiment's gene pools to avoid another "mouse utopia". By definition, Eugenics involves restricting a large segment of the gene pool from reproducing, and having the smallest segment of society produce most children. No matter how you go about it, this spells disaster.

It was tried here in spain btw. Under the Francoist regime and since Primo families of the higher class in certain areas bred only within their social status. Wanna know what happened? They had to steal babies from the poor families because they drove themselves to infertility that's what happened. Not that they were opposed to stealing children, they had already started during the war for indoctrination, but the point here is the infertility. Others have already mentioned how this ended in america and the rest of europe. It never ends well. It always ends in either infertility or severe mutations.

And yes I am saying that traits which also make you successful will derive in retardation. This is for two reasons, first, because in biology everything is a compromise, too much of a good thing is bad. More concretely, many traits which are good for heterocygotes or involve similar genes can turn really bad for homocygotes or divert too many resources and break other mechanisms too much when multiple of those similar genes coincide. Secondly, genes aren't selected in a vaccuum during selective breeding. They are selected along every other gene around them. Meaning mutations which cause severe issues due to, for instance, loss of function can easily ride "good traits" and appear in homocygotes, causing severe genetic issues.

This is ok and only affects a small portion of the gene pool so long as you don't select for them. But if you artificially shorten the gene pool it's gonna hurt you dearly. As it has many times in the past. Ever hears of feudal europe? Precolombine tribes? The Pharaohs? Arabic Lords? The Chinese Empire? Time and time again the most successful within their society tried to select for themselves. Time and time again this ended in retardation and infertility. Inbreeding is like that, it's that simple.



You are not describing evolution. What you described is "darwinism", a political current that was firmly regarded as pseudoscientific drivel by Darwin himself. Evolution DOES NOT differenciate between "good" and "bad" traits. Only between traits that are "fit for the environment" and traits that aren't. It has no illusions of traits being objectively desirable independent of environment.

This is why it works via PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM. Meaning long periods of slow to null evolution being punctuated by periods in which new sellective pressures cause rapid evolution. That's why crocodiles and sharks have stayed nearly the same for so long.

Evolution works by extinction events so to speak. And humanity has already had theirs. It was called the Bronze Age Collapse. A seismic event caused eartquakes to partially destroy cities all over eurasia, followed by the gases freed causing severe droughts, rising temperatures and fires, this caused a massive multicultural tide of riding refugees to start around sicily and grow in power extremely throughout mycinean greece and raid all of the eastern mediterranean until collapsing against egypt. We're already so fit even what previously caused mass extinctions only caused us to grow stronger by giving rise to carthage and the roman empire. We won. There is no reason to suspect the need for artificial pressure. It is just not something that we need anymore. Because our evolution is now in the term of tools and systems. And it is extremely noticeable.

We didn't just stop feeling natural sellection since we industrialized. We stopped feeling natural sellection at the fucking ice age! Tools beat nature, that is the power of humanity.

And that's why our current gig is pretty good. If an extinction event that can actually knock us out comes, we won't know what genes will help the most. Because of this, the larger the gene pool, the better. Within punctuated equilibrium if you have no natural pressure the best deal you can have is NO pressure. Better not select and let diversity of environmental factors create as many different traits as possible than applying pressure, shorten your genotipic and fenotipic pools and if a real pressure comes you're now fucked. Not that it matters at this point outside of plagues like corona. But since Eugenics constantly backfire due to severe side effects and even if it went well it would only hurt us, why even fucking try it again?! What you're spouting isn't blue sky theory, it's ancient pseudoscientific drivel.

You're running on the assumption that a smaller gene pool would lead to retardation; if I'm understanding correctly. I think what Johan is saying isn't "take 500 people and only they can breed", I think he is saying that it would be beneficial all around if a society was to make its population more aware of good breeding practices by various means. If I am understanding Johan's point, it isn't forcing anyone to do or not do anything, it is incentivising good practices but not exactly punishing bad ones.

Also, I'd like your take on why are we all not luddites given the Mt Toba extinction event which brought the world population to sub 10k about 70k year ago.

 

[EmuWarsVeteran]

You're running on the assumption that a smaller gene pool would lead to retardation; if I'm understanding correctly. I think what Johan is saying isn't "take 500 people and only they can breed", I think he is saying that it would be beneficial all around if a society was to make its population more aware of good breeding practices by various means. If I am understanding Johan's point, it isn't forcing anyone to do or not do anything, it is incentivising good practices but not exactly punishing bad ones.

Also, I'd like your take on why are we all not luddites given the Mt Toba extinction event which brought the world population to sub 10k about 70k year ago.

What he, and Darwinists like him mean by "good breeding practices" is rich people breed poor people don't. Then they always use moat and bayley reasoning when you mention the obvious issue: this requires totalitarian politics to control such obscene acts of repression. Do note how they never actually give a way in which this is done. So I stopped fighting on his moat and went straight to the bayley. Which is that quite simply even if they got away with this draconian nonesense, this still has lead every single time to the same issues in the past and will keep doing so in the future. Eugenics IS inbreeding and absolutely causes retardation and infertility because it ALWAYS grabs a small minority of the population and only breeds them. It is by definition an exercice in genetic self-sabotage.

As for Mount Toba. As mentioned before, punctuated equilibrium. Yes that event drastically reduced our genepool (althought it is debateable by how much) causing rapid evolution alongside a ton of more negative mutations, then the good traits were naturally selected. This is called a bottleneck.

Issue with bottlenecks is, while you recover from them and come back stronger, you only do so after a period of extreme suffering, plenty of genetic issues pop up on every single one of them, the number of retards and infertile mongs drastically rises for a bit, but if the species breeds fast enough and selects well enough they are overcome.

Issue with Eugenics is its NOT a single bottleneck, it doesn't cause a SINGLE extinction event, instead it's a prolongued multi-generational process of exclusion, so on top of all the suffering inflicted by the bottleneck you also get the fact that the increase in issues is prolongued over time. Instead of a bottleneck it's just a long tube of awful.

Not that it ever gets to that, because to even beat inbreeding out of the gate you'd need to mix people from different countries to have it not end like it has in the past, which is to say it doesn't even get past the 10th generation before the family tree looks like a tumbleweed and the descendants look like neardenthals.

Also btw stone tools have been found in multiple areas which indicate the toba extinction left multiple settlements in europe and india at least on top of the big group, so their genepool did get refreshed from outside sources anyway, they were just the largest contingent, which makes that point moot out of the gate, I just entertained it because even if it was right it would still suck. 10.000 people inbreeding isn't that bad. It's bad, but not EXTINCTION bad. Eugenics are much worse.

 

[Crankenstein]

What he, and Darwinists like him mean by "good breeding practices" is rich people breed poor people don't. Then they always use moat and bayley reasoning when you mention the obvious issue: this requires totalitarian politics to control such obscene acts of repression. Do note how they never actually give a way in which this is done. So I stopped fighting on his moat and went straight to the bayley. Which is that quite simply even if they got away with this draconian nonesense, this still has lead every single time to the same issues in the past and will keep doing so in the future. Eugenics IS inbreeding and absolutely causes retardation and infertility because it ALWAYS grabs a small minority of the population and only breeds them. It is by definition an exercice in genetic self-sabotage.

As for Mount Toba. As mentioned before, punctuated equilibrium. Yes that event drastically reduced our genepool (althought it is debateable by how much) causing rapid evolution alongside a ton of more negative mutations, then the good traits were naturally selected. This is called a bottleneck.

Issue with bottlenecks is, while you recover from them and come back stronger, you only do so after a period of extreme suffering, plenty of genetic issues pop up on every single one of them, the number of retards and infertile mongs drastically rises for a bit, but if the species breeds fast enough and selects well enough they are overcome.

Issue with Eugenics is its NOT a single bottleneck, it doesn't cause a SINGLE extinction event, instead it's a prolongued multi-generational process of exclusion, so on top of all the suffering inflicted by the bottleneck you also get the fact that the increase in issues is prolongued over time. Instead of a bottleneck it's just a long tube of awful.

Not that it ever gets to that, because to even beat inbreeding out of the gate you'd need to mix people from different countries to have it not end like it has in the past, which is to say it doesn't even get past the 10th generation before the family tree looks like a tumbleweed and the descendants look like neardenthals.

Also btw stone tools have been found in multiple areas which indicate the toba extinction left multiple settlements in europe and india at least on top of the big group, so their genepool did get refreshed from outside sources anyway, they were just the largest contingent, which makes that point moot out of the gate, I just entertained it because even if it was right it would still suck. 10.000 people inbreeding isn't that bad. It's bad, but not EXTINCTION bad. Eugenics are much worse.

So you're assuming he means one thing when he specifically said otherwise? I'm not trying to be argumentative but you're conflating things he has specifically separated.

\
It is, word for word; the process of natural selection undertaken by humans.
It is not:
Shooting the disabled.
Fucking your sister.
Breeding for specific genes.
Breeding for specific individual traits.
Breeding for mutant big brains (that post was also insane btw)
Breeding for specific philosophies.
Breeding for anything other than success with society.

With that, he isn't saying "only the rich and powerful", he's saying "anyone and everyone start picking better partners, instead of banging anything that gives you attention". I could be wrong, but that's what I'm taking away from it.

Also, regarding the bottleneck; I'm not sure what you're imagining a population to be, but there is enough biological diversity in a place as small as Rhode Island to keep from making tardlings from sheer numbers alone for quite a long time without having to import.

 

[EmuWarsVeteran]

So you're assuming he means one thing when he specifically said otherwise? I'm not trying to be argumentative but you're conflating things he has specifically separated.



With that, he isn't saying "only the rich and powerful", he's saying "anyone and everyone start picking better partners, instead of banging anything that gives you attention". I could be wrong, but that's what I'm taking away from it.

Also, regarding the bottleneck; I'm not sure what you're imagining a population to be, but there is enough biological diversity in a place as small as Rhode Island to keep from making tardlings from sheer numbers alone for quite a long time without having to import.

No. He is specifically saying SUCCESS IN SOCIETY should be the SOLE determinant of reproduction. Which exactly means only the rich and powerful get to breed.

And yes, rhode island has enough genetic diversity, although it also has migrants but aside from that I've seen small villages. But guess what. If only the rich in long island breed. Well shit goes the same way it went when francoist ultracatholics tried it. Poorly.

 

[Crankenstein]

No. He is specifically saying SUCCESS IN SOCIETY should be the SOLE determinant of reproduction. Which exactly means only the rich and powerful get to breed.

And yes, rhode island has enough genetic diversity, although it also has migrants but aside from that I've seen small villages. But guess what. If only the rich in long island breed. Well shit goes the same way it went when francoist ultracatholics tried it. Poorly.

I think I see your reasoning, and in the scenarios you are laying out, your views are correct, but you're making a jump from "don't just bang; be selective" to "only Elon Musk can bang all the hot chicks forever".

If I'm understanding you, you're insinuating that the folks at lower statuses that possess positive traits would not be allowed to procreate at all; to be his meaning, correct? I'm seeing it less as an issue of absolutes, or thinking in black and white. As I understand it, thus far, the notion he is putting forth, and the idea i am agreeing with is anyone and everyone, regardless of status, race, creed, or any other buzzword, should be told to make better choices in who they make offspring with by way of awareness campaigns, public outreach centers, or other things of that nature. Not demonize the proles, not kill the tards, and not castrate sub-normals.