For real, do you think eugenics is a bad idea per se? To improve mankind through selective breeding, and for all people, not just the rich that can selective breed their children to be better than everyone else child. Or is eugenics deeply problematic and shouldn't be pursue? I have mix feelings on it, one side i think that idea in broad terms is good, to better people, but on the flip side eugenics can be used by not well intentional groups or people. Overall is a mix bag for me, it could work making a proletarian master race that could bring galaxy brained socialism that will colonize the starts with their 1000 I.Q or just become a instrument for rightoid to keep it power forever.
>>2223486Just like AI, it will come down to control of the source code. For a Socialist outcome you will need to develop tools that are difficult to regulate and easy for people to use at home.
For example, it's already fairly cheap to have your genome sequenced. There are compatibility algorithms that can predict whether a couple will get divorced better than humans can. There are even DIY CRISPR kits for biohacking your own genetics.
All you need to do is gather the right datasets and tweak the algorithms. Bring groups of people together on the basis of compatibility for mutual aid, rather than simply couples to form nuclear families. Identify genes that increase cooperation and solidarity, then experiment with them. Create early warning systems to spot people with the psychopathic traits that reproduce Capitalism.
Above all, keep everything Free and Open Source. Make sure there are no barriers to using the technology and run a decent version control so that everyone can contribute and fork, while keeping the main release free of counterrevolutionary elements.
>>2223616>putting people wandering around with dowsing rods that beleive in string theoryMy kind of people.
>in charge of who gets to have sexIVF exists. No sex necessary.
>>2223486All the worst people support eugenics so it (rightfully) gets a very bad rap.
Eliminating genetically linked diseases isn't bad on paper, the problem is there's nothing stopping people from going further and making designer babies as part of a "master race".
>>2223723>making designer babiesWhy is that bad? Eliminate psychopathic traits and you get rid of nearly all police and politicians. Knock out genes for greed and laziness so your children don't think "Landlord" or "HR Manager" are acceptable careers.
>>2223743Basically this. The moment people have access to gene editing technology it's game over for them.
>>2223751genes + nutrition = brain chemistry
brain chemistry + social conditioning = behaviour
You cannot claim to be a materialist if you disagree with this.
It's the worst thing ever liberal and nazoid psychopaths such as Rockefeller and Himmler/Mengele and the likes obsess over due to sadism, power fantasies and delusions over human scientific omnipotence.
In materialist terms capitalists must dream of having the means to create different breeds of short-lived, docile humanoid worker breeds with limited or no means and sense for self-defense (aka no "free will") at all and different taxonomic features for different purposes e.g. soldier breeds, overseer breeds, assembly line breeds, researcher breeds, artist breeds, sex doll breeds and so on that simply can be dumped when they're broken in order to make money & maximise profits. Capitalists are of course also obsessed with transforming capitalists into a super über strong beautiful hyper-intelligent forever young humanoid king breed destined to rule and control the other humanoid breeds, which is why liberal upper middle class types tend to indulge into anti-aging and all sorts of "progressive self-improvement".
There's a reason "eugenics" was buried after Nazi Lebensborn/AktionT4, including by the UN: It's essentially systematic mass murder conducted by psychopath mass murderers and leads to the worst dystopia i can imagine. Today's existing racism is chicken shit compared to what lurks inside a Pandora's box labelled "eugenics".
Other than that all animal breeds human professional breeders tried to "improve" using breeding programs turned out worse, that is less "fit" and less likely to survive in their natural environment than the original species. The most "optimized" breeds are unable to get food and nurture themselves without their human owners.
I'm not against using gen tech in medical science in order to develop new cures, antidotes and vaccines etc. against diseases, harmful viruses, bacteria, funghi etc. however that's not eugenics anyway.
MAYBE under socialism or communism systematic but extremely limited and cautious monitoring for gene defects and a potent AI tcould help to combat certain conditions but honestly i would still be super sceptical.
>>2223723>making designer babiesIts immoral
le spook not to make healthier babies with gene editing.
>>2223486>For real, do you think eugenics is a bad idea per se?No, but it is impossible to practice it in a good way before global capitalism is destroyed…
>proletarian master race that could bring galaxy brained socialism that will colonize the starts with their 1000 I.QNevermind. You are one of these folks who think there is nothing wrong with the Imperium of Man, aren't you?
>>2223486I think it is immoral to impose on other people's lives over it.
I would rather us implement genetic engineering to make superhuman babies, like that movie Gattaca
>>2223486Like everything pertaining to trans-humanism, even if you pretend to only take the "good" aspects, it simply CANNOT BE TRUSTED under liberalism. So if you want any sort of worthwhile human-led evolution of the species, you will have to get rid of class society first.
It is not negotiable. I do not care how many brands techno pervert crop up, who purport to depend on trans-humanist products for dear life.
>>2223486>Non-Consensual and likely violent Population Control, likely violence on women and children>Selective Breeding (because that works so well for 'healthy' purebred dogs)>Genetic Bottlenecks>Loss of Genetic Diversity>Corona2 wipes us harder than the 1918-1920 flu pandemicObjectively horrible for humanity and even entertaining the idea like this isn't great because people will jump on it without considering the consequences and reality of it.
People who are curious about autism scores and misinformation regarding it historically and also in relation to genetics and eugenics may want to check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UBc7qBS1Ujo?t=1831Pretty long, but kinda interesting.
The eugenics part starts at about 2:18 hours and the summary of the video is at 2:29 hours.
Looking into DNA, CRISPR and biohacking is pretty interesting, but eugenics ain't it.
>>2223486>To improve mankind through selective breedingYou won't improve shit. Whatever qualities "selective breeders" may find desireable, those aren't desireable in reality
Apart from obvious genetic defects and disorders that make life miserable, you can change nothing meaningful in humans. Real value of humans is in the brains and education, not in made up shit like I Q
>>2223486>selective breedingUgh. I'm going to just talk about gene editing instead.
I understand that you can't look at technology as if it's "neutral" when it exists in a system where it is absolutely used for ideological reasons. It's as useless of a statement as saying, "money is just paper bro!"
Useful technology like gene editing could be massively useful in the world but in this society, it will be used as a toy for rich people, or worse. That's my only concern with it because I don't hold any stupid, religious bullshit preventing me from being willing to hit a button that would end birth defects that leave the baby with profound retardation. The problem is the system it exists in, which will use it for bullshit reasons.
>>2228775modern women are the biggest eugenicist of the world
Brutal TRUTH NUKE, no woman would give a their time to a ugly, autistic man, the incel chuds do have a point here.
>>2228775>>2228875>Anon every single woman I have ever asked out has said no time and time again, most men who go incel only do so at their teens in the earliest because you have prior life experience and know the answer is always no because modern women are the biggest eugenicist fascist regime in all of history. Take a shower and take of yourself, people saying no isn't "eugenicist". I'm literally a mixed east asian in the states, something that if you believed incel rhetoric would have me never having sex, and I've had sex with people and in places that would sound fake as hell if I said them here.
Like, I'm straight up on the scene, and overweight guys with unconventional faces have zero issue being with woman. And tbh, I am absolutely no looker either, yet two of the /s I work on and D/ for are attractive (my type at least) married woman.
If most incels put like 10% more effort in their lives and stopped putting both themselves and others on a pedestal, they would have more experiences with people.
<But that's only in the context on the scene though! From experience, traditional dating and relationships are unironically easier.
>>2228911>Try to be a ugly autistic manlet and go try to have a date with a woman, incel chuds become incel chuds for a reason, but still if you were a woman would you date a ugly autistic, possible mentally unhinged, manlet? Who's is the wrong here? The women for not want to mate with ugly autistic or the trucel autist?Dude, sadly, I've seen enough woman dating people I personally find to be ugly, autistic, and
extremely mentally unhinged. I really try my very best in life to remind myself that I'm not some divine arbiter of personal taste, but woman, just like men, can have taste that makes 0% sense to me. Working in trades completely shattered any conception I had of people.
Also, blaming people for not going out with you for being "mentally unhinged" is cope. I have my own list of issues, but at least I've tried to work on them and acknowledge that I was the one who burned people and that I had to take responsibility for my shit, even if some of it wasn't my fault.
>>2228700You can be a psychopath and still be completely functional in society, you mongoloid. It has been proven time and time again that whilst genetic predisposition /may/ make people more susceptible to criminal behaviour, it is not a causal link. The different "brain wiring" can also emerge at a young age when you consistently have experiences of violence.
You are just looking for lame-ass excuses to make sweet love to Mengele's dick and become a fascist that is really into eugenics. And even if eugenics were to become a thing, you and your low-autism score-brain would be one of the first to be removed from the gene-pool.
>>2223486Eugenics is good
OP should be shot alongside anyone that agrees with them
There, that’s my eugenics
>>2228899> Take a shower and take of yourself, people saying no isn't "eugenicist". I'm literally a mixed east asian in the states, something that if you believed incel rhetoric would have me never having sex, and I've had sex with people and in places that would sound fake as hell if I said them here.You talk like a redditor mate, simply having sex as an East Asian doesn’t mean stringent and applied eugenics (alongside intense anti-proletarian sentiment and racism) does not exist in “dating”
It’s not people saying “No”, it’s the entire vile culture around romance and relationships in capitalist societies, people don’t just naturally despise certain features and lifestyles, and to deny there are not penalized phenotypes and lifestyles in romantic coupling is extremely disingenuous
> Like, I'm straight up on the scene, and overweight guys with unconventional faces have zero issue being with woman. And tbh, I am absolutely no looker either, yet two of the /s I work on and D/ for are attractive (my type at least) married woman. Simply being overweight and having an unconventional face doesn’t mean you will necessarily be subject to the eugenicist standards of dating, someone can be overweight and “unconventional” but still conventionally attractive
> If most incels put like 10% more effort in their lives and stopped putting both themselves and others on a pedestal, they would have more experiences with people. This is just liberal voluntarist nonsense and I wish self-proclaimed socialists would stop promoting it. I say this as someone that does not face a substantial struggle with dating despite being subject to ferocious classism for trying to (employed but too poor to move out or afford a car)
>>2228927Look, autistic incel, that at least aren't totally ugly, do actually tried to improve themselves, that's the whole point of the autistic idea of "looksmaxxing" created by incels, still many incel dude still can't score it, something clearly is wrong here, but I don't know what is it.
>>2228945>humans practice eugenics on animals and plants for thousands of year>"hmmm ok">humans think of applying eugenics to better the humans race>"noooooooo, you can't do that, that hurt my feelings, kill eugenicist because… it hurst my feelings and make me feel bad, i have no empirical arguments against it, just my hurted feeling"What a retarded.
>>2228975Artificial selection doesn’t “improve” plants and animals for anything but exploitation by humans, most domesticated species cannot even survive out of human maintained habitats, “improvement” isn’t even really a scientific concept, it is a subjective human one.
That the entire purpose of artificial selection is purely to improve the ability of plants and animals to either work for or be harvested by humans, the problem with eugenics becomes fairly obvious, the only regime to pursue it would be one of class power, ergo, it is inherently anticommunist.
>>2228985I guess you don’t know what idealism is
Not rare for this board
>>2228989>What if, like<Capitalism exists due to the internal inherent dispositions of individuals, yea that’s right MLoids 🤝🏻 Liberals
>>2229004Thinking individual impositions and beliefs are the driving force of history is the essence of liberalism
Do you think racial ideology is somehow not idealist because the proponents claimed a scientific basis to their beliefs?
Scientism is deeply idealist in nature
You are quite literally explaining modern politics and historical developments through the lens of individual psychologies
That is idealism in the most literal sense
Asking “Would you kill baby Hitler?” as if the key to German fascism was a single politician and not the balance of class forces in Germany and Europe at the time betrays a nonsensical liberal outlook
>>2229016As you don't want to answer the question, let's rephrase it.
Would you kill the Romanovs?
>>2229022not that anon
10 years ago I would have said no just keep them as prisoners and rehab them like Mao did to that one Chinese emperor guy
now 10 years later I'd say hell yes kill all of them the children too
the elites always have it too good and need to be taught a lesson
>>2228958>You talk like a redditor mate, simply having sex as an East Asian doesn’t mean stringent and applied eugenics (alongside intense anti-proletarian sentiment and racism) does not exist in “dating”I won't argue that there aren't some culturally fucked "values" that people have, but arguing that woman saying "no" to people they have zero chemistry with is "applied eugenics" is laughable. Am I engaging in eugenics when I leave a relationship and decide I don't want to have a family with someone?
>It’s not people saying “No”, it’s the entire vile culture around romance and relationships in capitalist societies, people don’t just naturally despise certain features and lifestyles, and to deny there are not penalized phenotypes and lifestyles in romantic coupling is extremely disingenuousI'll actually agree with this, there is something to be said how relationships and romance is portrayed in media, and how it shapes our preferences. But calling this "eugenics" is a step too far in my view; you yourself were shaped by exposure growing up. There is a difference between saying that capitalism may be pushing us towards certain "eugenic outcomes" and media has a subconscious effect on us, and saying "modern women are the biggest eugenicist fascist regime in all of history".
>Simply being overweight and having an unconventional face doesn’t mean you will necessarily be subject to the eugenicist standards of dating, someone can be overweight and “unconventional” but still conventionally attractive What? You can't be both unconventional and conventional. You can be attractive to an individual because their sense of attraction has been dice rolled by exposure and personal chemistry, but you telling me that someone is both (in larger sense) both socially attractive and unattractive feels like I'm missing something.
>This is just liberal voluntarist nonsense and I wish self-proclaimed socialists would stop promoting it. I say this as someone that does not face a substantial struggle with dating despite being subject to ferocious classism for trying to (employed but too poor to move out or afford a car)It's about as volunteerist as saying "you have to work around the damage and baggage the capitalist system lays on you to have healthy relationships". This applies to everyone. Effort isn't just brushing your teeth and looking nice. 10% is literally just looking at yourself and realizing that you have underlying issues that you've acclimated to as being your normal. And that it's not always your fault, but that it is your responsibility to work on it in the spectrum of what you can.
>>2229018Is there actual undeniable proof that murder and rape happen due to human genetics, and not at all people’s existence in antagonistic environments and social factors and individually lifetime experiences that encourage such behaviors in people? Furthermore, what should be done to those that run a state that ultimately decides which of their citizens are and are not allowed to breed? Once we reach the point of simple might makes right, what of the right of the citizen-subject to enforce its might on a state that practices biological control over its subjects? I think these questions actually heavily contribute to why ML run regimes are necessarily brutal to proletarians.
>>2229022You ought not pretend this is a rephrasing of your idiotic question, Hitler began his life as a nobody, not a royal. Regarding the Romanovs, no, because revenge is functionally worthless and with their base of power so thoroughly smashed that even few of the Whites wanted their dynasty reinstated, it serves little actual function.
>>2229024All proletarians not involved in revolutionary struggle tacitly support capitalism, this includes communists, most of all self-described communists who are functionally fascists in a particularly bizarre LARP.
Capitalism is not sustained by people’s belief in it, most people accept capital’s mode of organizing life when this system functions as normal, and your “left or right” predisposition is meaningless if both arrive at “capital’s rule is legitimate”
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how class consciousness and then communist consciousness emerges
This board is rife with idealist fucks lmao
>>2229037This, and even thinking the Romanovs mattered is idealist as fuck
Had they survived, even escaped, what difference would it actually make? In a century when monarchies were dying the world over? With the Bolsheviks centralizing state power anyway? Fuck tons of former whites escaped and they had no effect on the USSR.
>>2228975>Look, autistic incel, that at least aren't totally ugly, do actually tried to improve themselves, that's the whole point of the autistic idea of "looksmaxxing" created by incels, still many incel dude still can't score it, something clearly is wrong here, but I don't know what is "Looksmaxxing" is incels turning hygiene into the most autistic shit ever, internalizing it, and then morphing into the most vapid noxious people in existence. They never stop being incels in mentality, except now they're galvanized.
>>2229028> I won't argue that there aren't some culturally fucked "values" that people have, but arguing that woman saying "no" to people they have zero chemistry with is "applied eugenics" is laughable. Am I engaging in eugenics when I leave a relationship and decide I don't want to have a family with someone? Who said women rejecting men is applied eugenics? Clearly people are referring to the general, often stringently enforced looks standards that make someone “desirable”. When women feel compelled to leave boyfriends they love for things as arbitrary as height then the imposition of eugenicist logic in dating is relatively clear.
> I'll actually agree with this, there is something to be said how relationships and romance is portrayed in media, and how it shapes our preferences. But calling this "eugenics" is a step too far in my view; you yourself were shaped by exposure growing up. There is a difference between saying that capitalism may be pushing us towards certain "eugenic outcomes" and media has a subconscious effect on us, and saying "modern women are the biggest eugenicist fascist regime in all of history".I’m not the one that said women are the biggest eugenicist fascists or anything nonsensical like that, but that’s likely an emotional reaction to being negatively affected by a eugenicist culture. Women are also affected by it but in different ways, the attacks on “overweight” women reeks of eugenicism to me, and neurodivergent people are generally castigated in dating either implicitly or overtly as the most clear case of eugenicist culture.
> What? You can't be both unconventional and conventional. You can be attractive to an individual because their sense of attraction has been dice rolled by exposure and personal chemistry, but you telling me that someone is both (in larger sense) both socially attractive and unattractive feels like I'm missing something. You can be fat but tall
You can not look like Henry Caville but still have masculine features
You can simply be non-white and have conventionally attractive features, but by being non-white are inherently unconventional in the West
> It's about as volunteerist as saying "you have to work around the damage and baggage the capitalist system lays on you to have healthy relationships". This applies to everyone. Effort isn't just brushing your teeth and looking nice. 10% is literally just looking at yourself and realizing that you have underlying issues that you've acclimated to as being your normal. And that it's not always your fault, but that it is your responsibility to work on it in the spectrum of what you canNo, it’s as voluntarist as saying the individual has the ultimate control and say over his social fate.
>>2229059I know a person that work with adoptees, from his experience, many many child that were giving to well off families and good environments didn't do much to change a kind of fundamental way that the child interact with the world, many (not all) of those kid goes to show anti social behavior from the get go, classic one, like killing animals and beating other children, stealing things, DESPITE of all the good environment and love that hose adopted child receive from their parents, those kind fundamentally have a mind that work different from other kids, speaking plain and straight: those kid are born to be anti social. I still can't understand that some people accept that homosexuality and intersexuality is innate while negating the idea that other behaviors and traits can be innate too and those have social impact. But I do agree the eugenics in general is complicated and a slippery slope if done it in a whatever manner, I support eugenics in broad terms, but I have problems on how should be implanted and who should decide things.
>>2229056>What the fuck is /nrx/?? Holy fuck how new are you? Nrx, neoreactionaires. Moldberg, Yarvin, Land, etc.
>I don't eve know what's that, but still criminology did plenty of study on the origins of crime, and they do agree that SOME criminal behavior do have a genetic component, the clear case of this is looking at crimes committed by people that aren't born in poverty or social deprivation, some people, even people from well off background commit crimes, showing that crimes isn't caused only by poverty or social deprivationPeople being predisposed to certain behaviors is not the same as them actually having said behaviors exist in a context that would lend them towards criminal activity. Someone with anger issues might kill their spouse if a series of events and social factors lead them towards that. But they also may never do so, because other factors in their life lead them towards a support system that had them living a better life.
We also have to ask the question of what crimes we are talking about.
>>2229090Indeed
And leftypolers being shot is literally revolution
>>2229084See, that a very slippery slope, in the end if you respect freedom in general, you will let people suffer the consequences of their actions or of the environment in general, if you believe that the environment is a strong force of influence on people behavior, then you subscribe implicitly to the idea of totalitarian control over environment, the problems we, in general, do even know all the variables of the environment, genetics is far more easy to account and control to see their impact, environment is messy and chaotic.
>>2229091You mean like the Bukele concentration camps supported by mentally ill rightoid psychos with the single digit Eye Que orange Hitler in cheeef. Everything rightoids do are dysgenic, Dirlewanger was a child molesting sadist, Göring a fat buffon, Hitler ate turds and the other ones probably also had mental illnesses.
Just read through the WH Twitter posts, its what a low Eye Que retard would think badassery sounds like.
>>2229101I have zero interest in moralism or sentimentality, sorry of that offends you.
I am more interested in dismantling the systems that allow people like Bukele to run concentration camps than in punishing proletarians for foolishly cheerleading for their own butchers.
>>2229100>If the government does not reserve the right to commit genocide, uhhhh it has to be more totalitarian in a way that deciding which citizens do and do not get to live and breed is not!Maybe this is why upholding le “governance” is liberal nonsense to begin with?
>Uhhh well you see the proletarian state has to butcher proletarians for the good of the proletariatSheer nonsense
The reason this board struggles to resist fascist ideology is because of the proximity between fascist politics and ML apologism
>>2229110>Where does moralism stopAt material analysis
Anything else?
>>2229113Materialism you say.
Are genes real?
>>2229066>Who said women rejecting men is applied eugenics?Look at the start of this conversation.
>Clearly people are referring to the general, often stringently enforced looks standards that make someone “desirable”. When women feel compelled to leave boyfriends they love for things as arbitrary as height then the imposition of eugenicist logic in dating is relatively clear.I could see that, in regards to people folding to larger social pressures of what partner they "should" have, but this is honestly not as large of an issue as people make it out to be. The only time I have ever witnessed a person do something similar, had that person being a basketcase of insecurities and issues.
>I’m not the one that said women are the biggest eugenicist fascists or anything nonsensical like that, but that’s likely an emotional reaction to being negatively affected by a eugenicist culture. You're being awfully forgiving here, I wouldn't apply this level of tolerance to any other kind of similar rhetoric for other groups and experiences.
>Women are also affected by it but in different ways, the attacks on “overweight” women reeks of eugenicism to me, and neurodivergent people are generally castigated in dating either implicitly or overtly as the most clear case of eugenicist culture.I will agree with this, but in the sense of standards in capitalist media and that capitalist conclusions lead to "eugenic"-esc ones.
>You can be fat but tall>You can not look like Henry Caville but still have masculine features>You can simply be non-white and have conventionally attractive features, but by being non-white are inherently unconventional in the WestWe're really stretching conventional and unconventional here. Largely no one would say that an unattractive but tall man has "conventionally attractive" features, they would say they're unconventional. Unconventional doesn't mean there isn't "something" you could find attractive in them.
>No, it’s as voluntarist as saying the individual has the ultimate control and say over his social fate.Where did I say this? None of us ever has "absolute control" over anything, but we do have a spectrum we can work within. Nothing I stated presumed "ultimate control over ones social fate".
>>2229140even the animal kingdom is more loving and generous than humans at this point
Some animals are shown to care for their blind or disabled to a point. I believe elephants are a good example.
Then there are chickens. Chickens will peck members of their own family to death if they are even slightly 'off' or deformed. Humans really are more similar than chickens than we would like to admit
tl;dr "the animal kingdom" is widely varied depending on evolution and genetics formed from environmental pressures. I wouldn't be surprised if humans are genetically prone to retarded fascist shit as an evolutionary mishap
>>2229100>See, that a very slippery slope, in the end if you respect freedom in general, you will let people suffer the consequences of their actions or of the environment in general, if you believe that the environment is a strong force of influence on people behavior, then you subscribe implicitly to the idea of totalitarian control over environment,Dude, I'm a communist. Why do you think I subscribe to the "freedom" for people to suffer the consequences of environment?
>do even know all the variables of the environment, genetics is far more easy to account and control to see their impact, environment is messy and chaotic.People who know the least about genetics really speak the most about it in this board. No, they really aren't. I have to listen to my brother about this, its insane the simplistic view people like you have about genes.
>>2229131> Look at the start of this conversationI’m disagreeing with both you and that poster
> I could see that, in regards to people folding to larger social pressures of what partner they "should" have, but this is honestly not as large of an issue as people make it out to be. The only time I have ever witnessed a person do something similar, had that person being a basketcase of insecurities and issues. To be fair, the odds that someone who doesn’t fit eugenicist standards ends up partnered are already quite bad
> You're being awfully forgiving here, I wouldn't apply this level of tolerance to any other kind of similar rhetoric for other groups and experiences. Understanding isn’t the same thing as tolerance, and I do think claiming women are “fascist eugenicists” is a fairly different claim than, say, evopsych and bio essentialism, which are completely horrendous worldviews. One is a reactionary response to real alienation and, in all honesty, the way women help enforce patriarchy (which is a major contention for men that gets retarded by men’s inchoate rejection of feminist ideas)
> I will agree with this, but in the sense of standards in capitalist media and that capitalist conclusions lead to "eugenic"-esc onesI don’t believe in essential behavioral characteristics for the most part, I’m not the person you were talking to originally
> We're really stretching conventional and unconventional here. Largely no one would say that an unattractive but tall man has "conventionally attractive" features, they would say they're unconventional. Unconventional doesn't mean there isn't "something" you could find attractive in them.Tall height
is conventionally attractive
> Where did I say this? None of us ever has "absolute control" over anything, but we do have a spectrum we can work within. Nothing I stated presumed "ultimate control over ones social fate".This is why I call it liberal voluntarism, “the spectrum you can move through” is meaningless, it’s no different than liberals rationalizing the class orienting structures of capital by claiming a worker can accrue their wages regardless of lifetime circumstances, the problem is the wage relation
I think a major part of the problem is the entire model of approaching relationships embraced by society
>>2229158Modern humans only take care of their weak due to societal pressures and fear of retribution from those who they wish to harm.
When this fear of retribution fades away, fascism (or some variant of it) rears its ugly head until beaten back down.
>>2229115Genetics are real, ascribing them the essential character necessary to explain social history while eliminating class and modes of production is idealist nonsense
>>2229119The proletariat doesn’t engage in revolution because capitalism is “immoral”, but because we are structurally positioned to do so and because capitalism goes against our material interests. The proletarian revolution may promote a moral rhetoric, but class struggle itself does not emerge from any moral truth about society. A struck animal bites, it is that simple. Classes in antagonistic contradictions confront each other, just as a sovereign state will resist an invading army to the best of its ability. In normal times, moralism is what helps secure bourgeois rule, by convincing the proletariat that its own power seeking tendencies are wrong, that expropriation would be “theft”, revolutionary terror would be “murder”, and political confrontations with the bosses would be “divisive”.
The proletariat doesn’t need its own exploitation to morally unjust to resist it, the bourgeoisie (the only class for whom moralism would matter with regard to ending the capital relation) will not abolish the capital system and remain bourgeois no matter how immoral they may find wage labor, which they generally do not anyway
>>2229116People here aren’t strongly against ML, ML heavily dominates this board, MLs get immense pushback because they consistently promote nationalist, conspiratorial, and pro-capital lines here; this pro-eugenics thread was likely made by either an ML or a /pol/fugee
>>2229166Elliot Rodger was certainly an incel, but he was an individual as well, and I would say his mass shooting spree is more about America’s social-psychological crisis and the intense anomie of this society combined with the severe consequences of its extremely violent and militaristic propaganda than the specific subculture he aped
Incels have been the extreme minority of recent mass shooters of the last ten years compared to neo-nazis and other fascists, and the incels that have committed such acts often were themselves well within the neo-fascist camp as well
>>2229172Beyond that, haven’t many extremely ornate and well adorned burial sites been found for people that would be deformed or disfigured by our standards, implying that, rather than ostracizing such individuals, early human societies often saw spiritual significance in their appearances?
>>2229152Ugliness is a eugnicist concept to begin with
It is not socially neutral
>>2229172I believe that this is some genetic trait that has been largely bred out of certain cultures. Unironically the red scare might have turned westerners (especially brits) into the psychological equivalent of shitbulls.
If it was just purely you would see rich subgroups of minority communities in the USA behave the same as sociopathic rural whites, but they really don't.
>>2229189Fucking christ why can’t MLoids just read fucking Marx or go on X with the other fascist freaks already?
When will you fuckers stop posting Hitlerite thought every fucking day?
PS: if you disagree that genetics determines if you're a rightoid, the SCIENCE literally disagrees with you. Genetics can doom you to be a rightoid:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.12921
>RWA and SDO exhibit very high genetic correlation (r = 0.78) with each other and some genetic overlap with the personality traits of openness and agreeableness. Importantly, they share a larger genetic substrate with political attitudes (e.g., deporting an ethnic minority) than do Big Five personality traits, a relationship that persists even when controlling for the genetic foundations underlying personality traits.It is fucking proven.
>>2229183Nope. Rodger was not an incel. He said girls asked him out but Becky wasn't good enough so he killed people because Stacy could not be his.
He was a 6/10 mad because he was not getting 7/10 blondes just 4/10 nerds. That's why he killed 14 people.
I do not care what your definition of incel is, he was not. Even the most legally lax definition decrees by the incel council is that you have not been asked out by a woman who does not pose harm to your health in 2 years or so and counting does not let him into the celibacy club. This is also why it is impossible for femcels to be real.
I forget when the last time he was asked out was but he did not meet the definition.
Rodger was an angry white worshipping mid tier normie not an incel. Only normies ended up thinking of hapas as incels thanks to technical illiteracy promoted like
yours. this selection process is seemingly arbitrary however, since natural "fitness" is a relative term by definition. a spider and human have different selection pressures and evolve different characteristics. the question must be answered then, what is the theoretical "environment" involved and to what ends do fitness serve? a high I.Q. math wizard is good for some things, but not for most. this is where you must then conceive of a social division of labour ("the world needs ditch diggers too, y'know"). different people are good for different things. selection then, as i say, is relative. should we abort retards and cripples, is what youre really asking, and the answer is obviously yes. this is also performed in natural communities, where the least fit child will often be neglected by the mother, and so will serve as bait for predators (if it is the case of prey). no one wants to be retarded or crippled, so it is a moral imperative to deny this possibility where we can. you can look up examples in nature of "post-birth abortions" also. alpha male hippos may kill the child of their "step child" (like we also see in humans; i would know). it is also perhaps the case, as we see historically, that the rate of fertility is tied to child mortality (like in the case of prey, who always outbreed predators). less children die due to illness today, so people have smaller families. selection pressures then adapt (which maybe also explains the increased rates of homosexuality in societies which have a lesser imperative to breed). my point is to show that fitness is conserved, and weakness is given as a natural surplus. what is the purpose of creating weak and dependent people when we dont have to? yet, i define fitness here only as a lack of unfitness. we cannot positively say what is best for all, but only what is undesirable. retards and cripples are undesired.
>>2229202Likewise, the only reason fascism is "popular" is because they've been given countless opportunities to exploit forgiving idiots to genocide non-fascist populations. It's not because fascism is somehow better at arguing or anything, the population has just become dumber and more reactionary.
It is essentially an evil subspecies of humanity that has genocided many real humans and vows to replace them with monsters. It's not ethnic minorities who are evil, but rather with this genetic virus that makes them incapable of empathy towards others and simultaneously hyper violent and predisposed to hatred and obsession.
>>2229216this is complete deterministic nonsense
>people who disagree with me are subhumanhmm. reminds me of… fascists.
>>2229159>To be fair, the odds that someone who doesn’t fit eugenicist standards ends up partnered are already quite badI don't think a lot of people necessarily follow that standard wholly, but I don't know how the rapid influence of media in our everyday lives will affect this. But attraction is complicated; your taste can be shaped by one exposure to something growing up.
>Understanding isn’t the same thing as tolerance, and I do think claiming women are “fascist eugenicists” is a fairly different claim than, say, evopsych and bio essentialism, which are completely horrendous worldviews. One is a reactionary response to real alienation and, in all honesty, the way women help enforce patriarchy (which is a major contention for men that gets retarded by men’s inchoate rejection of feminist ideas)I agree that woman can reinforce patriarchal ideas, I would even argue just as much as many men. I think people here can give a hard time to feminist theory about this, but it's actually a core part of it, particularly in regards to mothers.
But I still feel this is too forgiving, because would not apply to racist rhetoric for example.
>I don’t believe in essential behavioral characteristics for the most part, I’m not the person you were talking to originallyI apologize then.
>Tall height is conventionally attractiveAgree to disagree. Just being tall doesn't make you attractive to most people, and isn't what people refer to when talking about "conventionally attractive" people. To start at the "baseline" of what's considered "conventionally attractive", people start usually at face.
>This is why I call it liberal voluntarism, “the spectrum you can move through” is meaningless, it’s no different than liberals rationalizing the class orienting structures of capital by claiming a worker can accrue their wages regardless of lifetime circumstances, the problem is the wage relationThe spectrum isn't meaningless. That's like saying that mental illness has left you not doinh well, therefore the idea of treatment is liberal voluntarism because there is a spectrum you can work with to be the best you can be with what you have. The context I live in may have me (abstractly) being between 50% and 75%, but I'm still going to work towards being 100% of what I can be.
>I think a major part of the problem is the entire model of approaching relationships embraced by societyAnd I will 100% agree with you on this.
>>2229218Forum posts mentions if I recall not manifesto. Rodger has no reason to mention that he got asked out by ugly girls.
Men usually will have the foresight women so not to not include contradictory evidence.
>>2229230Link them to me I am genuinely curious
>>2229231What’s your point? Are you implying if he had the courage to approach he’d suddenly get women? Doubtful.
>>2229237what youre saying is:
>my eugenics is good<their eugenics is badin the midst of this, nothing is qualified as to what makes it good or bad, except random political opinions founded in the 20th century
>>2229166I don't know about the rest of that, but I will say Roger always did strike me as a narcissist.
>Dumb post from Asian Chang who thinks fucking Becky is an accomplishment.I mean, depends how you define "Becky's" and "Stacy's", because some were absolutely "Stacy's" in a conventional sense (though you might not think so because many of my partners were/are non-white).
Most were however completely insufferable, the most "conventional Stacy" I ever messed around with I greatly regret having done so, and even more so having let her in my life as much as I did. Feel bad for her, but her responsibility at the end of the day to fix her issues.Also, you shouldn't be thinking of woman in terms of "accomplishments", that's not a healthy or conducive way of looking at experiences or people.
>>2229286i just wouldnt be a utopian about it.
also, with disease, it doesnt go away, it just gets treated better. we can only increase immunity, but never remove the problem.
>>2229288I agree, eugenics as idea in general is good and actually do work in practice, but the implementation is very messy and complicated by the human factor.
>>2229290Yeah, incels on the general are very narcissist, they think they are entitled to sex from a hot woman, while they don't have nothing to offer to her, like are ugly, autistic, mentally unwell and mostly NEETs or work in low tier wagie work.
>>2229280You were the one who replied with "i had sex b4 doe"
Incels just want the certainty of a relationship offered by past generations no longer available.
>>2229322more people die today by raw numbers than have ever died in the past. people die not just from disease, but also artificial causes, like cars, trains, vending machines, etc.
death finds a way of equalling the playing field. this is why "fitness" must include the unfit to define itself by.
>>2229325thats natural selection. eugenics is artificial selection, like how farmers breed animals, or how masters breed slaves. arranged marriages also act like this in part.
>>2229303>You were the one who replied with "i had sex b4 doe"Incels just want the certainty of a relationship offered by past generations no longer available.
That "certainty" largely sucked all around. You existed as a disposable economic output, and your partner hitched up with you because the alternative was being completely economically immiserated. You had a bunch of children whose relationship with you was largely based on their role, and your wife existed to take care of the household, with you having largely no time with her outside of the short snippets.
>>2229314>Because Chad gets that from birth without tryingEven "Chads" need to put in effort, if you think you can go throughout life without trying at all, then you've only sabotaged yourself. I'm not X, so I may as well not even do Y, feels uniquely western and linear.
>>2229354>doing private eugenics themselves.its called natural selection
and natural selection is… natural. and beauty is also in the eye of the beholder, just like fitness is relative.
>>2229359well, i empathise. ive had 1 gf when i was a teen, but none since then (i cope by pretending i am a volcel). is your contention that you will never have a gf or that you will just have an ugly gf? cos theres a big difference. i figure that i will eventually marry an ugly woman, but thats just "life".
>>2229360I think lookism is semi real, I mean I saw in my life some ugly dude with very hot girls, but again, they had something going on in their life, they were smart, confident, or had money, I never saw a ugly, autistic, mentally unwell incel NEET dating a hot top tier model, that shit doesn't happen at all, also, I saw plenty of handsome dude having good time "going around" with many women, so women do care about how men look.
>>2229354>The whole point of what he said is basically he said is that we on a fundamental level desire health and beauty in the end, we those things aren't just that malleable to change because they are in the end good thing because of how the world works, They are malleable though, we all have different concepts and standards of what "healthy" and "hot" is, largely from exposure in our youth.
>we want healthy partner because is good to be healthy and easy to deal with the world when you are healthy and have healthy partner, and we like hot people, and he show the hypocrisy of people that say that don't like eugenics while at the same time actually doing private eugenics themselvesThat isn't "private eugenics", what the fuck are you talking about about? This is what I meant by manipulative and dishonest rhetoric, being attracted to what you're attracted to and having chemistry with the people you do isn't "private eugenics". This is like when people stretch the concept of religion to mean "believing in a thing", and then say atheists are actually secretly religious. It's reaching.
>>2229368>ugly, autistic, mentally unwell incel NEET dating a hot top tier modelI feel like this is a huge deck stack to make a point. If, like you implied, they have absolutely nothing going on, not even trying to improve themselves mentally, then why would anyone with respect for themselves want to date someone like that.
>so women do care about how men lookYou have to be sexually attracted to someone to have a sex life, that applies to everyone. But what we are attracted to is weird, messy, and largely shaped by youth.
>>2229418Dude, they are not, Jesus Christ, you can measure the health of person, you KNOW just but how person looks or act that they have some health problem, you KNOW when you speak or know a person is bright or not, you should attack eugenics on the ground of what should be select, how we implement eugenics without risking of going the stupid nazi route or let only retarded righotid be the only ones to dictated how eugenics should work, how we actually deal with people with certain traits, how we rescue the idea of eugenics from the hand of dumb nazioids and righoitds and actually make eugenics a force of good for many people, not just a few rich one.
>>2229426yes you can measure health, but intelligence and beauty are relative, as ive already stated. if one man likes black women, and the other likes white women, which is more "objectively" beautiful? you cant say, since its relative. homosexuals prove this well enough.
>what should we select forthis is the issue. who is "we"? everyone has their personal preferences.
>>2229450Hmmm… you do have a good point, I will give you that. I still think we could use selective breed on some trait to actually better mankind in general.
>>2229454I misread your reply, kek, but yeah vast majority of mankind would lose hard to a Neanderthal on a fist fight, but still a top tier MMA fighter would shit on a Neanderthal, even a top tier hunter one, would cool to see a fight like that.
>>2229429That's what eugenics observes and crudely attempts to make sense of, it isn't eugenics in itself.
Eugenics fundamentally insists that one can correlate a specific gene to a trait. It ignores epigenetics, as epigenetics supercedes it, and it is testably false: any trait is the result of several genes and environmental factors.
>>2228406 is right. Selective breeding must by definition reduce biodiversity and make the population more vulnerable to diseases. We mostly don't care if it's a plant species, but humans struggle with pandemics already and we care about people remaining alive. It's just not worth it to go past getting rid of severe disabilities.
Eugenics has nothing to do with incels. Eugenics is done to improve society, whatever the person in charge means by that. Women couldn't care less about improving society when choosing partners, it's not their duty to do so, anyway. There are big problems with women and you can bring them up, but eugenics has nothing to do with it and you sound like the dumb stereotype of a person who will call you a fascist if you don't give them free stuff.
>>2229490I know both stories, I think they paint a largely negative picture of eugenics, I still think that eugenics can be a force for good, my fear is let eugenics only be done by rich people, instead of being open to all people so they can have a chance to have a healthy and bright baby, not only rich people, there's actually people out there doing frontier germline editing, while the public is mostly unaware of that, technology come to you either you like or not, as a leftist I think this technology should be free for all people, eeveryone should have the chance to have a bright baby, not only the rich and powerful. Imagine a schizophrenia person having the chance of embryo edit his baby so the kid wouldn't have the risk of having schizophrenia like their parents, eugenics get a bad rep because of nazism and other unsavory types with deep prejudice.
>>2229508well the stories are just about the end of history, where all contradictions have resolved themselves into a changeless order of efficiency.
also, if the means of re-production are then in the hands of parents, can parents choose to farm children for their own private purposes, or are there regulations?
>>2229508Is it really 'eugenics' if the parents are the ones who get to choose things like that?
When it comes to gene editing, I'd have said it's 'eugenics' when the state is deciding what genes to edit or when you need a lot of money to get the good gene editing.
>>2229574>I think eugenics is good and even nessesary for leftism/communismHow?
>2)Makes its subject more human (pardon idealist language), not less humanYou can't just skip over this and then act like it's not a major flaw in you eugenicist policy, especially when #1 can contradict #2.
>>2223486the entire concept of eugenics fails because the concept of what "improvement" is entirely relies on cultural and personal opinion.
In terms of evolution, humans are perfect. We rule the god damned planet and are making our way into ruling the stars.
What is your goal for eugenics? what do you need it to accomplish? can you justify that goal as an actual need, and not just your desire for what society could be like?
humans are individuals with individual thoughts and desires. your idea of "improvement" is likely arbitrary and not something worth ending the lives of others over OR is something that eugenics just plain has no impact on.
in other words: eugenics will not make our world a better place. it will only make our world a different place. we should instead focus our efforts on improving the lives of the people that already exist.
>>2230105this
>>2229494and this
Eugenics fails on both a conceptual and mechanical level. It's ideologically incoherent and couldn't be carried out even if one tried anyway.
>>2229698no, eugenics was originally theorised by plato in "republic" where he suggests that the "guardians" (deep state, basically) should perform eugenics on themselves (by expressly comparing it to the breeding of animals). race theories are later revived by the british empire, and in the 19th century, aryanism becomes popular due to indo-european philology. darwin is also absorbed by malthus and spencer (of whom coined the term "survival of the fittest", later adopted by darwin in later editions of his work). this was whig theory, where "progress" is tied into gentlemanly rule over the peasants. this is also later manifested as "fabian socialism", which aldous huxley (author of "brave new world") promoted, along with H.G. wells' sci-fi vision. science fiction was a largely british device of class power, the same way arthur c. clarke in "childhood's end" equally imagines a "master race" saving humanity from itself. the eugenicist vision then finds its primal link in plato, where the notion of an ideal state imposes itself. utopianism is also a british invention, coined from thomas moore's book. bentham had the panopticon all the same.
Trotsky did believe in a eugenics of a sort. Talking about a humanity that already exists in communism, he says:
>More than that. Man at last will begin to harmonize himself in earnest. He will make it his business to achieve beauty by giving the movement of his own limbs the utmost precision, purposefulness and economy in his work, his walk and his play. He will try to master first the semiconscious and then the subconscious processes in his own organism, such as breathing, the circulation of the blood, digestion, reproduction, and, within necessary limits, he will try to subordinate them to the control of reason and will. Even purely physiologic life will become subject to collective experiments. The human species, the coagulated Homo sapiens, will once more enter into a state of radical transformation, and, in his own hands, will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection and psycho-physical training. This is entirely in accord with evolution. Man first drove the dark elements out of industry and ideology, by displacing barbarian routine by scientific technique, and religion by science. Afterwards he drove the unconscious out of politics, by overthrowing monarchy and class with democracy and rationalist parliamentarianism and then with the clear and open Soviet dictatorship. The blind elements have settled most heavily in economic relations, but man is driving them out from there also, by means of the Socialist organization of economic life. This makes it possible to reconstruct fundamentally the traditional family life. Finally, the nature of man himself is hidden in the deepest and darkest corner of the unconscious, of the elemental, of the sub-soil. Is it not self-evident that the greatest efforts of investigative thought and of creative initiative will be in that direction? The human race will not have ceased to crawl on all fours before God, kings and capital, in order later to submit humbly before the dark laws of heredity and a blind sexual selection! Emancipated man will want to attain a greater equilibrium in the work of his organs and a more proportional developing and wearing out of his tissues, in order to reduce the fear of death to a rational reaction of the organism towards danger. There can be no doubt that man’s extreme anatomical and physiological disharmony, that is, the extreme disproportion in the growth and wearing out of organs and tissues, give the life instinct the form of a pinched, morbid and hysterical fear of death, which darkens reason and which feeds the stupid and humiliating fantasies about life after death.
>Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.
- Literature and Revolution, 1924
Ultimately, I'm posting this less out of a sense me wanting to give my own personal thoughts on this (but to briefly comment, I do disagree), but more just to add something to this discussion that could be useful and to see what you all think.
>>2229597>How?Well, for example it would be very risky trying to build even advanced socialism with psychopaths having the same rights as normal people. Moving towards communism is inherently based on a massive degree of mutual trust. And psychopaths are by their nature liars and conmen who would backstab you the moment you shown weakness just to make themselves feels better. And then they would literally shit and piss on your corpse and tell absurd lies about you because they enjoy this.
Think about how Soviet Union had treated Estonians. Soviets forgave the Nazi collaborations (eventually they even forgave the Nazi collaborators themselves after a couple decades!), elevated Estonia to SSR of its own, gave them all benefits of socialism, supported their "culture" as much as their could. How did Estonia repay that to Soviets? By backstabbing them at the first possibility, telling shameless lies about suffering "genocide" and "colonialism", helping USA and NATO mass murder brown people and get away with it for fun, and only with a minimal shame showing genocial intent towards Russians. Improvement of material conditions did not "redeem" Estonians due to them being a psychopathic nation (probably a combination of genes making for a predisposition for one of the forms of psychopathy is overrepresented in Estonians due to the massive amount of inbreeding. Stalin should have improved the "racial hygyene" of Soviet people (and all northern Europe, really), by genociding Estonians, not like it wouldn't have made his reputation any worse.
To be continued.
>>2231396Actually, I think that this type of eugenics - genocide of psychopathic tribes/nations is actually natural to some degree to any society that wants to advance past Bronze Age, and is probably even nessesary for historical progress.
Heh, socialists/communists are the first people who can afford trying to perform eugenics against psychopathic nations humanely, instead of just holocausting or enslaving everyone.
For example, if I was in charge of Estonians after WW2, I would have straight up killed, even without due process, everyone who had collaborated with Nazis, as quickly as possible; then deported all civillian Estonians to Siberia and forced them to live there, unable for them or their descendants a long as they have more than 12.5% of Estonian blood to get into European part of USSR for the next 100 years, or get a journalist or a teacher job without taking a psychopathy test, or, Marx forbid, enlist into a party.
>>2232746Damn dude
Now that Engels retardedly said bigoted shit genocide is now valid
Inshallah herr Engels
>>2223486>For real, do you think eugenics is a bad idea per seYes. The understanding of genes eugenics relies on is fascist pseudoscience. Organisms are more than just genes and selective breeding.
Reminder that Lysenko did nothing wrong.
>>2232996>picBy 1919 Hitler was already with Kurt Eisner and seeing the USSR replace his group was likely the final nail in the coffin between him and Bolshevism.
You would have to convince Eisner to be taken in by the USSR then stop the monarchist who shot him.
On top of that you would have to stop the Freikorps either though conversion or otherwise.
This is all sounds very hard to do as a time traveler are you sure you don't want to just shoot baby Hitler.
>>2233741You would still
>Need to convince Rohm to go socialist>convince Goebbels to never abandon Marxism.>convince ᴉuᴉlossnW to never abandon Marxism>Convince Strasser and the rest that guilds are unlikely to be reformed>Convince them overall in general cooperation with bourgeoisie always leads to back stabbingI would just give the Soviets nuclear bomb instructions and hope they either kill us all or take over the world.
>>2233781Also
> Likewise, the bourgeois historian insistence that Lysenko's ideas somehow killed millions in famine in the USSR and China is based pretty much entirely on vibes and contradictory claims.<My attempt to understand “science” secretly centers around seething at liberal historians and most people rightfully pointing out pig iron is fucking shit for agricultureLmao what an intellectually dishonest retard
Typical ML
>For real, do you think eugenics is a bad idea per se? (Josh Shapiro talking in fake black accent)
The word "neoliberal" does not appear a single time in this thread, you worthless radlibs have failed me yet again
"Coercion in California: Eugenics Reconstituted in Welfare Reform, the Contracting of Reproductive Capcity, and Terms of Probation "
>Modern neoliberal eugenics takes the form of family caps, exchanges of money for sterilization, and the looming threat of prohibition on procreation as a term of probation. The target population has not really changed, the terminology has just been adjusted ever so slightly: it is no longer the biological defective who will produce undesirable offspring, but instead, the socially unfit parent who will raise undeserving offspring"we need to imprison mothers whose kids are late to school" (weird Kamala Harris laughter)
" Controlling Reproduction and Disrupting Family Formation: California Women’s Prisons and the Violent Legacy of Eugenics"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/14/5/73>In 2013, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) issued a bombshell report asserting that at least 144 women incarcerated in California state prisons were sterilized via tubal ligation without proper informed consent between 2005 and 2012. This occurred at a time when both the practice of compulsory sterilization in state facilities had been outlawed and the state prison system had declared that tubal ligations were not “medically necessary” and thus should not be a covered expense for incarcerated patients. Dr. James Heinrich, an ObGyn working inside California prisons, when asked by Corey Johnson for the CIR article about the $147,460 of taxpayer funds spent on sterilization procedures, described the cost as minimal “compared to what you save in welfare paying for these unwanted children—as they procreated more”. This quote highlights the eugenic logic held by at least one physician within this system and implies that these sterilizations were in fact an extension of the far-reaching California eugenics program—a eugenic legacy many Americans thought had stopped more than half a century prior.Your PMC friends are working class, right Marxist intellectual comrades?
>>222348
No, eugenics is bad, even ignoring that it would, and have, been used by literally genocidal regimes. Problem 1 is that we simply do not know enough about genetics, sure you can, for example, delete the surface protein the HIV virus binds to to reduce the chance of getting HIV, but how do you know that said surface protein doesn't have some beneficial effect you now rob future generations of? Problem 2 is that you cannot define what is better or worse, sure high autism score may sound good, but people with high autism score tend to commit suicide more often than people with middling autism score and also reproduce less…. What is a better human here?
Unique IPs: 108