| Nah Dawkins isn't far off, of course in theory a selective breeding program might work. Like the Bene Gesserit in Dune. However, what he should be careful to admit is that humans aren't livestock... it's officially the stuff of science fiction to think that anyone could have that much control over our breeding habits. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| Human beings are equally fucking deplorable no matter what you do, it's honestly pretty funny that the people who try to "progress" humanity/their ideals end up becoming less than human themselves [for example the Nazis/Imperial Japanese] |
 |
| Yeah, but where are these people going around saying "it wouldn't work"? See, that's the kind of strawman you make when you want to ever so slightly improve the mainstream perception of an idea while concealing that fact. And yeah, he goes on to talk about how he deplores eugenics, but still. |
HyperLFeb 16, 2020 7:26 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| A gun to the head works just as effectively in humans as it does other animals as well. Of course it 'works', morals have bugger all to do with it. |
 |
| Eugenics programs are pathetic in the face of genetic engineering and cybernetics. When I pick up a city bus and throw it on your ubermensch. Which one do you think is going to pay the most dividends in the same amount of time that a selective eugenics program takes? |
SoverignFeb 16, 2020 3:57 PM
 |
| Eugenics is a poisoned term still so I dislike it almost as much as GMO. Anyways, eugenics is broader than forced systematic breeding or population culls. That's some 19th/20th century bs right there. We're gonna have to come to terms with genetic therapy and fetal genetic engineering if we want to actually continue the upwards trajectory of the species' development. Genetic errors and "mistakes" will all become a bygone thing in another few decades time. As far as morals go, well, God didn't nearly eradicate Polio now did he? And to get ahead of the curve a bit, no I don't really support or desire designer children myself but intellectually it isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as we preserve our biodiversity at the same time. In some future circumstance it will likely be necessary, especially if we manage to become space-faring and need to rapidly adapt to foreign environments. |
| Nico nico ni~eed a siggy like the all the cool kids Really wish we had a rep system so I could farm it and spam rep+ |
| God leftists are braindead, those tweets are actual aids. They all think eugenics requires killing people lol. There is such a thing as ethical eugenics. Giving successful and attractive people government assistance to have more kids and penalize the low IQ and ugly people by making them pay more in taxes for their kids thus providing money to pay for attractive high iq people to have kids. That system pretty much sorts itself out and the following generations would be more and more improved. |
Dhaarok said: God leftists are braindead, those tweets are actual aids. They all think eugenics requires killing people lol. There is such a thing as ethical eugenics. Giving successful and attractive people government assistance to have more kids and penalize the low IQ and ugly people by making them pay more in taxes for their kids thus providing money to pay for attractive high iq people to have kids. That system pretty much sorts itself out and the following generations would be more and more improved. It's not that you have to kill people for eugenics to work, it's that letting a bunch of dudes go around fuckin ladies and not having kids really puts a wrench in the gears, so to speak. Lol not every guy reproduces but it's almost like allowing them to live effectively ruins the possibility of a genetically superior upper glass. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Gan_water said: Dhaarok said: God leftists are braindead, those tweets are actual aids. They all think eugenics requires killing people lol. There is such a thing as ethical eugenics. Giving successful and attractive people government assistance to have more kids and penalize the low IQ and ugly people by making them pay more in taxes for their kids thus providing money to pay for attractive high iq people to have kids. That system pretty much sorts itself out and the following generations would be more and more improved. It's not that you have to kill people for eugenics to work, it's that letting a bunch of dudes go around fuckin ladies and not having kids really puts a wrench in the gears, so to speak. Lol not every guy reproduces but it's almost like allowing them to live effectively ruins the possibility of a genetically superior upper glass. Oscar Pistorius, a double-amputee sprinter, has been denied a shot at the Olympics... for being too fast. The runner -- who uses carbon-fiber, prosthetic feet -- was reviewed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (or IAAF), a review which found the combination of man and machine to be too much for its purely human competitors. https://www.engadget.com/2008/01/17/prosthetic-limbed-runner-disqualified-from-olympics/ Let them waste their efforts in futility. |
|
| Well yes and no. Dawkins seems to be a reductionist here (I don't know his full view on genetic influence though) seemingly suggesting you can control anything with genetics but genetics isn't 100% of everything in humans. There is a limit to what eugenics can do so it's a matter of what is trying to be done that determines if it will work. |
| He's right tho. Why would it not work? |
Read Toriko! |
| I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He said it would work, he didn't say that it's moral, or that we should implement it. This isn't reductionist at all. If you quarantine everyone with HIV, HIV will disappear in a generation, period. If you quarantine everyone with the genes for sickle cell, there will be no more people with sickle cell, period. If you forced people who are genetically predisposed against cancer to reproduce more than people who are susceptible to it, less people will get cancer, period, regardless of any other sources of cancer. Where's the controversy because there is none? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He said it would work, he didn't say that it's moral, or that we should implement it. This isn't reductionist at all. If you quarantine everyone with HIV, HIV will disappear in a generation, period. If you quarantine everyone with the genes for sickle cell, there will be no more people with sickle cell, period. If you forced people who are genetically predisposed against cancer to reproduce more than people who are susceptible to it, less people will get cancer, period, regardless of any other sources of cancer. Where's the controversy because there is none? He isn't wrong, it would work. Just like how Tay-Sachs disease was virtually eliminated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease But then again you have scientists getting arrested for using CRISPR to make babies immune to HIV. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist He probably was knew he was shit posting tweeting on the normies. |
|
| Yea, how dares he say that something will work just because it's a fact. Nonsense. Sorry kids, our fabricated morality doesn't care about your feelings or science. |
katsucats said: I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He said it would work, he didn't say that it's moral, or that we should implement it. This isn't reductionist at all. If you quarantine everyone with HIV, HIV will disappear in a generation, period. If you quarantine everyone with the genes for sickle cell, there will be no more people with sickle cell, period. If you forced people who are genetically predisposed against cancer to reproduce more than people who are susceptible to it, less people will get cancer, period, regardless of any other sources of cancer. Where's the controversy because there is none? Eugenics isn't only about removal of disease but eliminating all traits perceived as undesirable. I don't mean physical traits, those can be altered. I mean human personality and mental health is more than just genetics. |
| That type of thing requires perfect leaders, but in real life there are no leaders alive who wouldn't abuse eugenics for military or racist ends for starters. Even if you removed racism from the equation, you still have other inhumane reasons it could be abused for. |
 |
Hoppy said: Literally this why the fuck arent people understanding this in the thread?Also what is good trait what is bad trait changes overtimes determined by the ruling class.It will lead to a domino effect if these type of people get an inch.Are these idiots here not realizing political and class reality and consequences here?That type of thing requires perfect leaders, but in real life there are no leaders alive who wouldn't abuse eugenics for military or racist ends for starters. Even if you removed racism from the equation, you still have other inhumane reasons it could be abused for. |
traed said: That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. It isn't about removing all traits, it can be about removing any traits. And so I can remove any single genetic trait without the need to eliminate all genetic and non-genetic traits to be qualified as eugenics. If, as you say, mental health is not genetics (although a component of it clearly is), then mental health is irrelevant to eugenics. If mental health is partially genetics, then genetics clearly work for that part.katsucats said: I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He said it would work, he didn't say that it's moral, or that we should implement it. This isn't reductionist at all. If you quarantine everyone with HIV, HIV will disappear in a generation, period. If you quarantine everyone with the genes for sickle cell, there will be no more people with sickle cell, period. If you forced people who are genetically predisposed against cancer to reproduce more than people who are susceptible to it, less people will get cancer, period, regardless of any other sources of cancer. Where's the controversy because there is none? Eugenics isn't only about removal of disease but eliminating all traits perceived as undesirable. I don't mean physical traits, those can be altered. I mean human personality and mental health is more than just genetics. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
ultravigo said: No, we just actually read the post.Hoppy said: Literally this why the fuck arent people understanding this in the thread?Also what is good trait what is bad trait changes overtimes determined by the ruling class.It will lead to a domino effect if these type of people get an inch.Are these idiots here not realizing political and class reality and consequences here?That type of thing requires perfect leaders, but in real life there are no leaders alive who wouldn't abuse eugenics for military or racist ends for starters. Even if you removed racism from the equation, you still have other inhumane reasons it could be abused for. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| It would work in an utopian world. |
 |
katsucats said: traed said: That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. It isn't about removing all traits, it can be about removing any traits. And so I can remove any single genetic trait without the need to eliminate all genetic and non-genetic traits to be qualified as eugenics. If, as you say, mental health is not genetics (although a component of it clearly is), then mental health is irrelevant to eugenics. If mental health is partially genetics, then genetics clearly work for that part.Eugenics isn't only about removal of disease but eliminating all traits perceived as undesirable. I don't mean physical traits, those can be altered. I mean human personality and mental health is more than just genetics. When I said "all" I meant any but I said "all" because if you can change any then they could change all so there isn't a huge distinction. I'm not saying one has to be for changing everything to be considered a eugenicist or that it's not eugenics if it's only changing a few, not all undesired traits. This was already implied where I said "perceived as undesirable" which suggests subjective judgment and subjective judgment is not universally agreed upon characteristics but individual preferences. I'm saying eugenics either would work or would not work depending on what is trying to be changed. I'm defining working here as total or near total removal of a characteristic rather than just a partial change. If you define working as even just a 1% change then sure it would work for any trait but I don't feel that is a good way to describe it. Again i was just highlighting not every human characteristic is entirely genetic. |
traed said: No offense, but this is a hilarious attempt at moving the goalpost if I've ever seen one. You said it in your previous post, in plain words, "Eugenics isn't only about removal of disease but eliminating all traits perceived as undesirable." Okay, let's assume you meant "any". But then you followed up with, "I don't mean physical traits, those can be altered. I mean human personality and mental health is more than just genetics." If you meant any here, physical traits would have satisfied and you would agree that eugenics works. katsucats said: That's a no true Scotsman fallacy. It isn't about removing all traits, it can be about removing any traits. And so I can remove any single genetic trait without the need to eliminate all genetic and non-genetic traits to be qualified as eugenics. If, as you say, mental health is not genetics (although a component of it clearly is), then mental health is irrelevant to eugenics. If mental health is partially genetics, then genetics clearly work for that part. When I said "all" I meant any but I said "all" because if you can change any then they could change all so there isn't a huge distinction. I'm not saying one has to be for changing everything to be considered a eugenicist or that it's not eugenics if it's only changing a few, not all undesired traits. traed said: Subjective judgment is completely irrelevant to the conversation. The post was not "what should we change", it was "it can be changed if we chose to change something".This was already implied where I said "perceived as undesirable" which suggests subjective judgment and subjective judgment is not universally agreed upon characteristics but individual preferences. I'm saying eugenics either would work or would not work depending on what is trying to be changed. traed said: Again, if you're defining eugenics as any change, then why do you keep changing your mind? There are plenty of characteristics that can be completely eliminated because they are genetics based. I'm defining working here as total or near total removal of a characteristic rather than just a partial change. traed said: Then surely, you don't mean any change. LOLIf you define working as even just a 1% change then sure it would work for any trait but I don't feel that is a good way to describe it. Again i was just highlighting not every human characteristic is entirely genetic. 1% and 100% is a false dichotomy. How about 99%? But you know what, I challenge that premise even. How about 100%? And the idea that eugenics fails if we don't also remove 100% of non-genetics regulated traits is a strawman. Eugenics is about regulation through genetics, not non-genetics. Suppose cancer is 40% genetic and 60% environment. If eugenics reduces cancer by 40%, it did 100% of what it was supposed to do. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: traed said: No offense, but this is a hilarious attempt at moving the goalpost if I've ever seen one. You said it in your previous post, in plain words, "Eugenics isn't only about removal of disease but eliminating all traits perceived as undesirable." Okay, let's assume you meant "any". But then you followed up with, "I don't mean physical traits, those can be altered. I mean human personality and mental health is more than just genetics." If you meant any here, physical traits would have satisfied and you would agree that eugenics works. When I said "all" I meant any but I said "all" because if you can change any then they could change all so there isn't a huge distinction. I'm not saying one has to be for changing everything to be considered a eugenicist or that it's not eugenics if it's only changing a few, not all undesired traits. It's not goalpost shifting. You just didn't understand I was defining the range of eugenics encompasses more than just disease elimination. To define a part of eugenics as representative of eugenics as a whole isn't accurate because we are talking about all eugenics applications not a limited application of eugenics because "eugenics" by itself implies the broad meaning. If Dawkins only meant eugenics in a more narrow meaning of the word he failed to say so. katsucats said: traed said: Subjective judgment is completely irrelevant to the conversation. The post was not "what should we change", it was "it can be changed if we chose to change something".This was already implied where I said "perceived as undesirable" which suggests subjective judgment and subjective judgment is not universally agreed upon characteristics but individual preferences. I'm saying eugenics either would work or would not work depending on what is trying to be changed. Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices. "Should" is part of eugenics as much as if not more than "can". katsucats said: traed said: Again, if you're defining eugenics as any change, then why do you keep changing your mind? There are plenty of characteristics that can be completely eliminated because they are genetics based. I'm defining working here as total or near total removal of a characteristic rather than just a partial change. Again I already said some things can be changed entirely and some can't. I never "changed" my mind. katsucats said: traed said: Then surely, you don't mean any change. LOLIf you define working as even just a 1% change then sure it would work for any trait but I don't feel that is a good way to describe it. Again i was just highlighting not every human characteristic is entirely genetic. 1% and 100% is a false dichotomy. How about 99%? But you know what, I challenge that premise even. How about 100%? And the idea that eugenics fails if we don't also remove 100% of non-genetics regulated traits is a strawman. Eugenics is about regulation through genetics, not non-genetics. Suppose cancer is 40% genetic and 60% environment. If eugenics reduces cancer by 40%, it did 100% of what it was supposed to do. By any I mean anything genetic can be changed except if it defies physics but if only a small portion of a characteristic is genetic then only the genetic factor is changed not inherently the whole characteristic. 1% is just an example because I am avoiding the question of at what precise point it should be considered to have essentially eliminated a characteristic but for discussion sake let's just go with 75% genetic factor. Problem is you're speaking of diseases that are binary states. Having it or not having it. I am talking more about character traits which is more of a spectrum. It's debated if personality is more nature or more nurture I've brought this up in other threads about eugenics but not every gene that can do something bad does only something bad and not every gene that does something good only does something good. There are genes that do both good and bad things and some are completely essential. You can't simply remove every bad trait without creating a negative effect along with it. The goal of eugenics is to make people more healthy or better traits in general so I don't think you can always be successful in eugenics in whatever way it can be applied due to how some bad genes are also good or even necessary. Some things can be changed without consequences and some can't. Going back my whole point all along is the limits of what eugenics is capable of without having a god like level of scientific knowledge and the right tools |
| I wish we could make every woman infertile unless the pass an IQ test and pay £100k for each kid. The world would be a much better place in 50-100 years and the planet wouldn't be destroyed. |
 |
| ^ Why women and not men? Are all men super high IQ or what? What if we made every cringe, empathy-impaired misogynist infertile? Dhaarok said: God leftists are braindead, those tweets are actual aids. They all think eugenics requires killing people lol. There is such a thing as ethical eugenics. Giving successful and attractive people government assistance to have more kids and penalize the low IQ and ugly people by making them pay more in taxes for their kids thus providing money to pay for attractive high iq people to have kids. That system pretty much sorts itself out and the following generations would be more and more improved. I have a feeling you consider yourself attractive and intelligent. That's not how that post makes you sound lol. How about we assist humble and kind people instead of arrogant, borderline sociopathic indiciduals? |
 |
| just because youre correct that does not mean youre right - Shiro of Fate Stay Night just because youre (scientifically) correct that does not mean youre (morally) right and Dawkins later tweets says that too he is just saying eugenics is scientifically correct |
deg said: Oh for the love of god deg please leave the moral grounds...just because youre correct that does not mean youre right - Shiro of Fate Stay Night just because youre (scientifically) correct that does not mean youre (morally) right and Dawkins later tweets says that too he is just saying eugenics is scientifically correct |
  “The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
Luchse said: deg said: Oh for the love of god deg please leave the moral grounds...just because youre correct that does not mean youre right - Shiro of Fate Stay Night just because youre (scientifically) correct that does not mean youre (morally) right and Dawkins later tweets says that too he is just saying eugenics is scientifically correct darwinism is all a fact that is use by eugenics too but stuff like social darwinism should be lessen as long as we all live in a society or else chaos and the collapse of society will happen |
QPR said: I thought Dawkins was an edgelord, but this is some next level edge, even for someone who avoids Chinese-looking people for fear of getting the coronavirus. I wish we could make every woman infertile unless the pass an IQ test and pay £100k for each kid. The world would be a much better place in 50-100 years and the planet wouldn't be destroyed. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| Thread Locked The topic of eugenics is controversial, as Twitter is not considered a source, and the only other site is considered questionable, this thread is locked for violating Rule 7.a. of Current Events.  Current Events Rule 7 Controversial/sensitive topics liable to incite rule violations (trolling, flaming, abuse) must: a. be sourced from a reputable English-language media outlet (e.g. New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Scientific American) b. use the title of the sourced article, and c. be of significance (e.g. changing legislature, Nature/Science journal articles, unexpected world events, etc.) This includes, but is not limited to, topics relating to: gender, sexual orientation, race, xenophobia, religion, abortion, sexual assault, immigration, hate groups, political ideologies, controversial public figures/leaders, etc. |
Fleeting_DreamFeb 17, 2020 9:01 AM
    Summertime days, passing gentlySunlight, leading to an encounter; Dreams that don't want to end Continue onwards toward the next day While she waits in the air. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |