Is eugenics a viable model for the future of humanity?

[imontheloose]

Seems so. Just as a farmer would select the strongest seed to produce a better harvest, the state should ensure that only the healthiest and most racially valuable to the state should reproduce. Only seems like cruelty to copecelling retards.

Nature operates on principles of selection: the strong survive, the weak perish; yet modern civilisation has allowed the weak, diseased, and degenerate to not only survive, but multiply through medicine, charity, and misplaced compassion. Quite literally a betrayal of nature. If you allowed inherited defects whether that be physical, mental, moral, or whatever else, to spread, you just dilute the nation's strength. Crime, mental illness, and even poverty you can argue, are often rooted in blood rather than muh socioeconomic factors.

Eugenics raises the biological quality of the people; over generations, it produces a healthier, more intelligent population. Just as you protect forests from blight and cattle from disease, the people's blood should be protected against degeneracy, as an umbrella term. It isn't a hatred thing.

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @BigJimsWornOutTires @DR. NICKGA @Gargantuan @PsychoH

 

[Jason Voorhees]

Geneotypes and alleles are extremely unpredictable and it's impossible to isolate all environmental variables.. Scientists have to go through dozens of generations of mice until they find someone with the desirable traits and mice have 10x more kids than humans. Eugenics for humans is very difficult implement. Selective breeding does works, but it takes hundreds of years, multiple generations and it doesn't always go according to how you've planned.

 

[ThisCat]

Stop being so High IQ the jews will notice you.

 

[Depresso]

Geneotypes and alleles are extremely unpredictable and it's impossible to isolate all environmental variables.. Scientists have to go through dozens of generations of mice until they find someone with the desirable traits and mice have 10x more kids than humans. Eugenics for humans is very difficult implement. Selective breeding does works, but it takes hundred of years, multiple generations and it doesn't always go according to how you've planned.

You must live test lives to make the uber mensch

 

[Snicket]

Seems so. Just as a farmer would select the strongest seed to produce a better harvest, the state should ensure that only the healthiest and most racially valuable to the state should reproduce. Only seems like cruelty to copecelling retards.

Nature operates on principles of selection: the strong survive, the weak perish; yet modern civilisation has allowed the weak, diseased, and degenerate to not only survive, but multiply through medicine, charity, and misplaced compassion. Quite literally a betrayal of nature. If you allowed inherited defects whether that be physical, mental, moral, or whatever else, to spread, you just dilute the nation's strength. Crime, mental illness, and even poverty you can argue, are often rooted in blood rather than muh socioeconomic factors.

Eugenics raises the biological quality of the people; over generations, it produces a healthier, more intelligent population. Just as you protect forests from blight and cattle from disease, the people's blood should be protected against degeneracy, as an umbrella term. It isn't a hatred thing.

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @BigJimsWornOutTires @DR. NICKGA @Gargantuan @PsychoH

Brave New World?

 

[VV62]

Wouldnt work on humans bud and if they did all of us here wouldnt be a thing rn

 

[Depresso]

Brave New World?

"I must serve as the gonion-carrier moid to bring about the promised all-mogger"

 

[Snicket]

"I must serve as the gonion-carrier moid to bring about the promised all-mogger"

 

[88PSLinAgartha]

people have done selective dating/breeding for as long as humanity exists jfl
but as soon as you utter the word eugenics people suddenly become defensive and start labeling you things, meanwhile they practice eugenics every single day without even realizing it

 

[Snicket]

people have done selective dating/breeding for as long as humanity exists jfl

That's natural selection. Eugenics is artificial.

 

[imontheloose]

Geneotypes and alleles are extremely unpredictable and it's impossible to isolate all environmental variables.. Scientists have to go through dozens of generations of mice until they find someone with the desirable traits and mice have 10x more kids than humans. Eugenics for humans is very difficult implement. Selective breeding does works, but it takes hundred of years, multiple generations and it doesn't always go according to how you've planned.

True. Genotype-to-phenotype mapping isn't linear and epigenetics adds a layer of complexity, as well as isolating environmental variables being awful. As you say, selective breeding has worked in animals, not for perfection, but for shifting population traits over time.

In humans, eugenics wouldn't need to aim for exact outcomes so to say, you could focus on reducing heritable diseases and encouraging traits like intelligence and health, even tho only statistically and over generations.

I feel like people ignore genetic knowledge rather than working with it.

 

[Depresso]

Seems so. Just as a farmer would select the strongest seed to produce a better harvest, the state should ensure that only the healthiest and most racially valuable to the state should reproduce. Only seems like cruelty to copecelling retards.

Nature operates on principles of selection: the strong survive, the weak perish; yet modern civilisation has allowed the weak, diseased, and degenerate to not only survive, but multiply through medicine, charity, and misplaced compassion. Quite literally a betrayal of nature. If you allowed inherited defects whether that be physical, mental, moral, or whatever else, to spread, you just dilute the nation's strength. Crime, mental illness, and even poverty you can argue, are often rooted in blood rather than muh socioeconomic factors.

Eugenics raises the biological quality of the people; over generations, it produces a healthier, more intelligent population. Just as you protect forests from blight and cattle from disease, the people's blood should be protected against degeneracy, as an umbrella term. It isn't a hatred thing.

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @BigJimsWornOutTires @DR. NICKGA @Gargantuan @PsychoH

people have done selective dating/breeding for as long as humanity exists jfl
but as soon as you utter the word eugenics people suddenly become defensive and start labeling you things, meanwhile they practice eugenics every single day without even realizing it

Rishta match making is the Rubiks cube of creating moggers out of carriers, jaw carriers and eye area carriers

@Xangsane @SecularIslamist @loyolaxavvierretard

Skull carrier

 

[thenewhebbe]

That's natural selection. Eugenics is artificial.

Yeah eugenic is artificial so is our society so eugenics is fix for that

 

[Snicket]

Yeah eugenic is artificial so is our society so eugenics is fix for that

The technology for eugenics isn’t there yet.

 

[manIetmachine]

Good thread chad

 

[imontheloose]

Brave New World?

I'm not talking about mass producing genetically engineered castes and drugging people into submission, nor do I want test-tubed babies and cloning. When most people mention eugenics, they don't aim to create a world of happy slaves like in Brave New World.

It reflects the fears of liberal democrats who worship individualism over duty. What they call "freedom" has led to moral chaos, and the survival of the unfit. If a state can guide reproduction to eliminate disease, weakness, and degeneracy, then it's not tyranny. The people should come before the individual.

 

[thenewhebbe]

The technology for Eugenics isn’t there yet.

We already do eugenics people that are sent in prison can't breed so they are out of tje genepool or atleast they stop breedimg .

Obviously we have sexual selection

The technology is their

 

[Snicket]

I'm not talking about mass producing genetically engineered castes and drugging people into submission, nor do I want test-tubed babies and cloning. When most people mention eugenics, they don't aim to create a world of happy slaves like in Brave New World.

It reflects the fears of liberal democrats who worship individualism over duty. What they call "freedom" has led to moral chaos, and the survival of the unfit. If a state can guide reproduction to eliminate disease, weakness, and degeneracy, then it's not tyranny. The people should come before the individual.

I don’t think it would be like Brave New World.

I’m not inherently against the idea of gene editing. It could probably be a societal net good.

I think there’d be a horrible cut off for residual generations that didn’t have any gene editing though - us!

 

[Snicket]

We already do eugenics people that are sent in prison can't breed so they are out of tje genepool or atleast they stop breedimg .

Obviously we have sexual selection

The technology is their

We don’t have the technology to increase IQ, height, eradicate pattern hair loss and change fundamental physical characteristics though.

I’m not opposed to something just because it’s artificial. I think that was unclear from my original post.

 

[KT-34]

Eugenics is constantly done, woman want rich and attractive and tall men, poor short and unattractive eventually die out


We're talking about making eugenics official, I don't think it will be done because it would be too drastic of a change and since people tend to not care what happens after they die, they will not care for the human gene pool as a whole

But we continue to evolve either way with the better traits gaining more and more place

 

[thenewhebbe]

We don’t have the eugenics to increase IQ, height, eradicate pattern hair loss and change fundamental physical characteristics though.

I’m not opposed to something just because it’s artificial. I think that was unclear from my original post.

We do to all of them height is just sexual selection

Hair loss is sexual selection and ban finastride and other things and make propaganda about anti balding.

Looks is the same thing sexual selection and propaganda . Iq is mostly just sterilize

 

[Depresso]

That's natural selection. Eugenics is artificial.

We already do eugenics people that are sent in prison can't breed so they are out of tje genepool or atleast they stop breedimg .

Obviously we have sexual selection

The technology is their

Eugenics is constantly done, woman want rich and attractive and tall men, poor short and unattractive eventually die out


We're talking about making eugenics official, I don't think it will be done because it would be too drastic of a change and since people tend to not care what happens after they die, they will not care for the human gene pool as a whole

But we continue to evolve either way with the better traits gaining more and more place

Where is the line?

 

[Snicket]

Where is the line?

I suppose natural selection is a crude form of eugenics, but we typically refer to eugenics in the context of genetic modification no?

 

[KT-34]

Where is the line?

There is no line until someone says there is

 

[imontheloose]

I don’t think it would be like Brave New World.

I’m not inherently against the idea of gene editing. It could probably be a societal net good.

I think there’d be a horrible cut off for residual generations that didn’t have any gene editing though - us!

Fair concern. There absolutely would be a gap generation. But that's gonna be true for almost any technological leap: literacy, electricity, the internet, even vaccines. There's always a transitional inequality.

History is full of turning points where the strong replace the weak. Progress is never equal. The idea that every generation must benefit equally is a sentimental fantasy. If gene editing creates a superior generation, then nature, or the state, has done its duty. The unmodified generations will simply be a necessary step in human improvement.

Just as the weak are left behind in any natural selection process, so too would the unenhanced.

That isn't a failure, it's a correction.

 

[Depresso]

I suppose natural selection is a crude form of eugenics, but we typically refer to eugenics in the context of genetic modification no?

I'd say if you're choosing then it's natural selection. If it's done to you then it's eugenics

 

[TheLightOfMyLife]

True. Genotype-to-phenotype mapping isn't linear and epigenetics adds a layer of complexity, as well as isolating environmental variables being awful. As you say, selective breeding has worked in animals, not for perfection, but for shifting population traits over time.

In humans, eugenics wouldn't need to aim for exact outcomes so to say, you could focus on reducing heritable diseases and encouraging traits like intelligence and health, even tho only statistically and over generations.

I feel like people ignore genetic knowledge rather than working with it.

This happens naturally anyways. The only people breeding are either battery ethnics mass producing slaves for the upper classes(which is kind necessary for a comfy western life) or intelligent, well educated people with lots of money and resources who can actually raise a member of the middle:upper class

But the former group of “people” aren’t really people, they are cattle.

 

[Snicket]

I'd say if you're choosing then it's natural selection. If it's done to you then it's eugenics

I guess but would you call selective dog breeding, eugenics?
I guess so?

 

[Depresso]

I guess but would you call selective dog breeding, eugenics?
I guess so?

It's dog eugenics

 

[imontheloose]

This happens naturally anyways. The only people breeding are either battery ethnics mass producing slaves for the upper classes(which is kind necessary for a comfy western life) or intelligent, well educated people with lots of money and resources who can actually raise a member of the middle:upper class

But the former group of “people” aren’t really people, they are cattle.

Sure, but it selects blindly. Our current system doesn't reward racial fitness, cultural loyalty, or moral strength — it rewards numbers and consumer productivity. Letting the so called "battery classes" reproduce without guidance isn't natural selection, it's decay.

We shouldn't tolerate mass breeding of low-value populations simply to feed a comfortable elite. That's capitalism's corruption, not eugenics. Real eugenics means purposeful improvement — eliminating degeneracy, uplifting the nation's people, and ensuring that only the biologically and culturally superior reproduce.

You're not describing evolution, you're describing livestock management with no soul or national purpose.

 

[Snicket]

Fair concern. There absolutely would be a gap generation. But that's gonna be true for almost any technological leap: literacy, electricity, the internet, even vaccines. There's always a transitional inequality.

True but you could become literate, get internet access. All those things were extrinsic and obtainble/learnable.

History is full of turning points where the strong replace the weak. Progress is never equal. The idea that every generation must benefit equally is a sentimental fantasy. If gene editing creates a superior generation, then nature, or the state, has done its duty. The unmodified generations will simply be a necessary step in human improvement.

Agreed.

Just as the weak are left behind in any natural selection process, so too would the unenhanced.

That isn't a failure, it's a correction.

This might all all be true but what's good for society isn't necessarily good for me!

 

[imontheloose]

True but you could become literate, get internet access. All those things were extrinsic and obtainble/learnable.

Precisely the problem. Past tools were external. You could adapt, catch up, educate yourself. But gene editing changes the human blueprint itself. It's not a skill you acquire, it's a biological upgrade that you either have at birth or you don't. You can't learn higher genetic potential, faster reaction times, or resistance to disease.

Once that gap opens, it's permanent unless the state imposes strict control over who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. That's the real eugenic imperative: to stop the formation of a genetic underclass before it begins.

 

[imontheloose]

@got.daim

 

[got.daim]

Seems so. Just as a farmer would select the strongest seed to produce a better harvest, the state should ensure that only the healthiest and most racially valuable to the state should reproduce. Only seems like cruelty to copecelling retards.

Nature operates on principles of selection: the strong survive, the weak perish; yet modern civilisation has allowed the weak, diseased, and degenerate to not only survive, but multiply through medicine, charity, and misplaced compassion. Quite literally a betrayal of nature. If you allowed inherited defects whether that be physical, mental, moral, or whatever else, to spread, you just dilute the nation's strength. Crime, mental illness, and even poverty you can argue, are often rooted in blood rather than muh socioeconomic factors.

Eugenics raises the biological quality of the people; over generations, it produces a healthier, more intelligent population. Just as you protect forests from blight and cattle from disease, the people's blood should be protected against degeneracy, as an umbrella term. It isn't a hatred thing.

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @BigJimsWornOutTires @DR. NICKGA @Gargantuan @PsychoH

yes.

 

[neurosis]

all forms of human reproduction should be outsourced and ultimately decided by an AGI

 

[Depresso]

Precisely the problem. Past tools were external. You could adapt, catch up, educate yourself. But gene editing changes the human blueprint itself. It's not a skill you acquire, it's a biological upgrade that you either have at birth or you don't. You can't learn higher genetic potential, faster reaction times, or resistance to disease.

Once that gap opens, it's permanent unless the state imposes strict control over who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. That's the real eugenic imperative: to stop the formation of a genetic underclass before it begins.

What about unintended outcomes escaping into the gene pool?

 

[imontheloose]

@ey88 @Jonas2k7 @n9wiff @Nick.Harte @optimisticzoomer thoughts on this?

 

[Snicket]

Precisely the problem. Past tools were external. You could adapt, catch up, educate yourself. But gene editing changes the human blueprint itself. It's not a skill you acquire, it's a biological upgrade that you either have at birth or you don't. You can't learn higher genetic potential, faster reaction times, or resistance to disease.

It's difficult to disagree with this. Even opponents of eugenics would have to agree.

Once that gap opens, it's permanent unless the state imposes strict control over who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. That's the real eugenic imperative: to stop the formation of a genetic underclass before it begins.

Do you trust the state with this responsibility though?
If it were done privately, then you really would get genetic underclasses I suppose.

 

[imontheloose]

What about unintended outcomes escaping into the gene pool?

That's why eugenics must be state-guided not left to individuals. Unintended outcomes can be identified and isolated. Natural reproduction introduces far more genetic defects than a regulated eugenic model would. The danger isn't in editing — rather doing it without a national purpose or biological discipline.

 

[neurosis]

Geneotypes and alleles are extremely unpredictable and it's impossible to isolate all environmental variables.. Scientists have to go through dozens of generations of mice until they find someone with the desirable traits and mice have 10x more kids than humans. Eugenics for humans is very difficult implement. Selective breeding does works, but it takes hundreds of years, multiple generations and it doesn't always go according to how you've planned.

This is the issue with inter species eugenics, there's too much inherent bias and the state/whoevers in charge of the eugenics process will be self serving. The only effective means of eugenics is outsourcing the means of reproduction to a more intelligence species (artificial intelligence)

 

[fr0st]

Seems so. Just as a farmer would select the strongest seed to produce a better harvest, the state should ensure that only the healthiest and most racially valuable to the state should reproduce. Only seems like cruelty to copecelling retards.

Nature operates on principles of selection: the strong survive, the weak perish; yet modern civilisation has allowed the weak, diseased, and degenerate to not only survive, but multiply through medicine, charity, and misplaced compassion. Quite literally a betrayal of nature. If you allowed inherited defects whether that be physical, mental, moral, or whatever else, to spread, you just dilute the nation's strength. Crime, mental illness, and even poverty you can argue, are often rooted in blood rather than muh socioeconomic factors.

Eugenics raises the biological quality of the people; over generations, it produces a healthier, more intelligent population. Just as you protect forests from blight and cattle from disease, the people's blood should be protected against degeneracy, as an umbrella term. It isn't a hatred thing.

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @BigJimsWornOutTires @DR. NICKGA @Gargantuan @PsychoH

eugenics is only good for the people permitted to reproduce. by most standards we would all be deemed unfit and either killed or sent to a camp.

 

[Depresso]

That's why eugenics must be state-guided not left to individuals. Unintended outcomes can be identified and isolated. Natural reproduction introduces far more genetic defects than a regulated eugenic model would. The danger isn't in editing — rather doing it without a national purpose or biological discipline.

Same problem as commuism

 

[Snicket]

eugenics is only good for the people permitted to reproduce.

This is what I was saying but monte says it's a net societal good.

 

[fr0st]

This is what I was saying but monte says it's a net societal good.

As jason said it takes hundreds of years of selective breeding to produce anything remotely "superior" ( if your lucky) and implementing selective breedong over that time span if not longer is near impossible without a militaristic state overseeing the majority of a world/nation. and this brings up another point how will production work? if a small amount of the population is only allowed to breed we will fall behind india for example which has a high population. moreover whos to say that two midwits cant birth an einstein?? it happens numerous times the person who invents teleportation could never be born due to their would be parents being incompatible.

 

[fr0st]

As jason said it takes hundreds of years of selective breeding to produce anything remotely "superior" ( if your lucky) and implementing selective breedong over that time span if not longer is near impossible without a militaristic state overseeing the majority of a world/nation. and this brings up another point how will production work? if a small amount of the population is only allowed to breed we will fall behind india for example which has a high population. moreover whos to say that two midwits cant birth an einstein?? it happens numerous times the person who invents teleportation could never be born due to their would be parents being incompatible.

but again selective breeding is near impossible to enforce. humans instinctually need to breed its what our purpose is if we are denied that eventually we will be fed up and there will be a revolution.

 

[Snicket]

As jason said it takes hundreds of years of selective breeding to produce anything remotely "superior" ( if your lucky) and implementing selective breedong over that time span if not longer is near impossible without a militaristic state overseeing the majority of a world/nation. and this brings up another point how will production work? if a small amount of the population is only allowed to breed we will fall behind india for example which has a high population. moreover whos to say that two midwits cant birth an einstein?? it happens numerous times the person who invents teleportation could never be born due to their would be parents being incompatible.

True, I was thinking about eugenics in the context of gene editing - not selective breeding though.

 

[imontheloose]

It's difficult to disagree with this. Even opponents of eugenics would have to agree.

Absolutely.

Do you trust the state with this responsibility though?
If it were done privately, then you really would get genetic underclasses I suppose.

Gene editing in private hands creates chaos — the wealthy breeding designer elites while the rest decay. But liberal democracies are too weak-willed to handle this responsibility. They serve profit and popularity, not biological destiny. Who do you think will control the gene editing corporations? I'm sure you can infer. (((They))) would use genetic technology to entrench their power, creating a genetically stratified world with themselves at the top. That's not eugenics — that's racial sabotage under the guise of progress.

Only a state that places the health of the nation — the people as biological whole — above individual rights or profit motives can guide eugenics responsibly. Similarly, only a state racially conscious can prevent our blood from being manipulated by foreign or parasitic interests.

Anything less invites corruption, fragmentation, and eventual collapse.

 

[fr0st]

True, I was thinking about eugenics in the context of gene editing - not selective breeding though.

That has more of a moral discussion that i wont debate because its mostly subjective.

 

[the_machinist_786]

No, antinatalism is the viable model. Let AGI inhabit the world, humans are inferior. If your argument rests on "but muh nature" then humans were never meant to escape hunting-gathering as intended by nature. As Rust Cohle says:-
"I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in human evolution. We became too self aware; nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, a secretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody’s nobody."

 

[imontheloose]

@fr0st You're right, eugenics isn't for everyone. It's for the future. Not all individuals will benefit, that's the point. That is the cost of racial and civilisational advancement. Weakness, mediocrity, and unpredictability have always held us back. Letting everyone breed because "you never know who might be a genius" is gambling with the bloodline.

The fact that selective breeding takes hundreds of years is precisely why it should start early and enforced by a powerful, unified state. Revolutions come and go, but the racial soul of a people endures.

As for production, mass labour from inferior stock is not a strength — it's a burden. The future belongs to quality, not quantity. India may outnumber us here in the UK, but they will never outclass us unless we abandon our blood.

Yes, instinct drives reproduction, but the purpose of the state is to channel instincts, not obey them. Discipline in breeding is no different than that of it in war time. Those who can't submit to that role have no place in the future.

Eugenics is not about fairness, that's a childish argument: nothing is fair. It's about the biological survival of a higher typ eof people.