Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: lachowski.jpg (302KB, 683x1024px) Image search:
[Google]
302KB, 683x1024px
I think that eugenics is wrong and immoral and comes from a lack of understanding of Darwin's evolution theory and rather follows the ideas Lamarck had about animals which is actually has been proven to be wrong and there is no proof of it ever working in history.
Or am I wrong? Has eugenics ever worked in history?
>>
ask a eugene
>>
>>1798503
Works for horse breeding.
>>
>>1798503
Not much point in doing it to humans in regards to race
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/02/03/mailbag-fetishizing-richard-lewontin/
http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
Horses on the other hand, maybe.
In regards to dogs, that was fucked up too
>>
Ashkenazi Jews are a good example of what happens when only the most intelligent breed. Mean iq of 115. Vastly overrepresented in Nobel prizes. Goyim literally can't compete.
>>
>>1798503
Dog and horse breeds come to mind. The people creating them over time weren't exactly letting their female animals be inseminated randomly, not when they got the "more muscular/taller/whatever + more muscular/taller/whatever = more animals with that trait" even if they did not understand how it worked exactly.
Eugenics on humans? It is so loaded with negativity (which is understandable to an extent), that I have seen people say that, even if the technology to solve genetic illnesses was found, they would refuse to use it because "it would be eugenics."
>>
>>1798503
I think there are two types of eugenics:
1. Aborting defected fetuses, preventing literal retards with Down Syndrome from breeding
2. "Perfecting" a race/people and creating a superhuman through artificial selection
The first is pretty awesome, the second sounds good in theory but in practice is pretty terrible and I'm not even talking about morals now. Just limiting the number of alleles by breeding for very specific traits would make mankind virtually inbred.
>>
>>1798503
Of course it has worked, what the fuck do you think happened to dogs and horses?
Shit for damn near every domesticated animal it has been employed to some degree. How is eugenics even wrong? What is wrong with systemic genetic improvement?
>hurr but muh lose of potentially good genes
Store them in a test tube, its 2016.
>hurr what even are good genes
Intelligence is genetic.
>>
>>1798503
>Has eugenics ever worked in history?
Agriculture.
Animal breeding.
>>
there's no arguments against eugenics other than muh feels.
the united states fucked it up by sterilizing people of normal intelligence in the 30s and of course Hitler n shit, but Sweden basically practiced it until the late 70s.
>>
>>1799902
>its 2016.
DON'T YOU KNOW GUYS - IT'S XXXX YEAR!
XXXX YEAR!!!
>>
File: inbreeding.jpg (528KB, 1250x873px) Image search:
[Google]
528KB, 1250x873px
>>1799902
>dogs
That's not a successful example, anon.
>>
>>1799882
>ashkenazi jews practiced eugenics
source?
the example that comes to mind concerning practiced "eugenics" SHOULD be the southern slave market, right?
>>
>>
>>1798503
Eugenics aren't "wrong" because we still practice them (>>1799903).
Racism is a different book. It got mixed up with eugenics, but remember transmission is made at an individual level.
Anyway, by the time we have a good grasp on our genetics for human eugenics to be adequate, we'll have designer babies.
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3