Are eugenics ever justifiable?

>>2390129
Sexual selection is all we need

of course

If you're an atheist, your answer is gonna be yes.
If you're a Christian, your answer is gonna be no.

/thread

>>2390129

Justifiable ?

I am yet to hear a reasonable argument against it.

ethically no and science wise data is too limited to create experiments which will change generations of humans for good or worse

>>2390129
Yes. We should all become asians since they have the highest IQs

>>2390156
Jews*

eugenics is just another one of those things that are immediately off limits for every normalfag under the age of 25 that paradoxically fancies themselves a free thinking nihilistic moral relativist

>>2390148

for a very limited period from evolutionary standpoint we have created multiple sub species serving our needs

without having advanced understanding of science for the most part of the process

Eugenics happens all the time when women abort, and it happens all the time when women choose a specific partner over another and procreates.

Eugenics is a word that simply means to choose the best genes, which is something evolution does by itself.

>>2390136

human society seems to fall uniquely outside the realm of "survival of the fittest."

disabilities that would be weeded out are kept due to our ability to treat them. Hell, there are dating services for people with downs syndrome and many of them reproduce

>>2390180
>>2390170
>evolution

I'll take the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just baiting, not a retarded fedora that actually believes in that monkey fairy tale.

>>2390180
evolution is not just sexual selection.

And a commonly accepted part of Eugenics is not just promoting the good traits, but actively denying negative traits

No.

File: 1291610666469.jpg (50KB, 1000x900px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1000x900px

>>2390205

Old school eugenics won't come back.

CRISPER and DNA editing will get big. Rich people will be able to make their kids super strong and super intelligent. Already a cure for muscular distrophy is being developed that could turn a normal person into a roid monster.

Once the rich do this one time, they can pass the super traits on to their kids.

A new aristocracy is inevitable.

File: Very fast android processing at incredibly high-speed.png (204KB, 704x528px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 704x528px

>>2390213
This. In a sense we are already practicing a type of eugenics in molecular biology. Cancer gene screening has been around for a while (think breast cancer) and this has implications for epigenetics which at the forefront of medical research. By modifying lifestyle behaviors and coupling that with gene therapy (still in early days stability-wise) we are inevitably heading down the road of eugenics whether he like it or not. Its a health matter, not a 'lets create super humans!' matter.`

>>2390213
>is not just promoting the good traits, but actively denying negative traits

But these things are mutually inclusive. If a woman has children with a man who is 6.5ft tall, broad shoulders and a chiseled jaw, it means she does not value men who do not have those traits.

File: 014-gattaca-theredlist.jpg (111KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1280x720px

We'll be able to genetically engineer our babies in the womb eventually anyway.

>>2390291

And what if he has a heart condition that leaves him dead at 40, but he lived long enough to have 4 manly children?

It's not like she values shitty heart conditions.

>>2390129
What if the new human race you create through eugenics turns out to be unfit to survive?

>>2390232
Yes, I can't wait to see all the retarded rich people kill themselves off by drinking the artificial genetics koolaid.

>>2390318
The likelihood that a man who looks like a greek god has a heart condition is very low. Outward appearance does correlate with physical health, believe it or not.

>>2390355
>The likelihood that a man who looks like a greek god has a heart condition is very low.

It happens more often than you'd think. Obviously poor physical health will contribute to developing a heart condition, but that has nothing to do with genetic heart conditions. Same with propensity to cancer, or mental disorders, etc. It's not like a healthy heart magically gives you a chiseled jaw, and arguably being very tall is worse for your heart. You can be very unattractive yet in excellent health, as well.

If it sits better with you, let's say our greek god has a family history of violent schizophrenia. This is pretty obviously something that is not a positive trait in a partner, but it's also one that can be easily missed in partner selection if they personally are not showing symptoms.

>>2390382
So explain why evolution made women attracted to men who look a certain way then, and vice versa.

Even if I grant that you are correct, there has to be some genetic benefit to procreating with attractive people, else no one would do it.

>>2390404

>So explain why evolution made women attracted to men who look a certain way then, and vice versa.

Chad "early onset alzheimers" Bigdick is a handsome, sociable and athletic man who looks after his family and has 5 children. Either nobody sees him going senile at 40 coming, ("It happened to his grandfather, but that was just unfortunate!"), or they just assume they'll get lucky (I hope I don't need to explain to you that humans have a remarkable lack of long term forethought). He's now put 5 handsome, sociable and athletic men with a predisposition to early onset Alzheimers in the gene pool. Not to mention many women won't quiz their prospective handsome hubby on their family's mental history. Not to mention for most of human history people wouldn't have even been aware of a majority of genetic conditions, and a guy keeling over as a genetic condition at 40 wouldn't have been "predictable" for a prospective spouse.

I am not arguing that sexual selection has no benefit, I'm saying that sexual selection on its own isn't that great at eliminating negative traits. It generally only accounts for what is immediately apparent. An efficient eugenics program (not that I'm necessarily saying "We need an effective eugentics program!" due to its moral implications) would be able to identify genetic conditions in ways that your average individual pretty obviously can't. In practical terms, even if a little morally iffy, it would be far more effective at cultivating a healthy society than relying on sexual selection alone.

>>2390129
Voluntary eugenics is perfectly fine. See abortion.

>>2390488
>Murder of innocent babies
>fine

Atheists are psychopaths.

File: augustine.gif (88KB, 310x337px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 310x337px

>>2390494

Babies aren't innocent, anonymous, they are born filled with sin and filth.

>>2390494
>can't think
>a baby
>implying brain birth isn't the most sensible place to confer personhood

>>2390197
Aren't downies sterile?

>>2390129
Are they ever not?

>>2390544
>brain birth
That's a new one for me.

>>2390561
Not the women if I recall right.

>>2390544
the earliest possible point for defining "personhood", if you define a person as a being with a soul and the soul as being indivisible and unique, is the point in fetal development after which it's no longer possible for the fetus to split into twins (two separate people).

So even if you're religious and believe in a soul and all that, there's zero justification for saying abortion is never morally right. Even funadmentalists should be able to agree that very early abortion is fine because it's literally a clump of cells that may or may not become a person, or persons, but isn't a person at all.

>>2390808
Some countries don't even limits on abortion though so I can understand why someone objects.

Even though I am a non-believer, I don't think abortion is without any ethical consideration.

Take Canada for example. Canada has no limits whatsoever on abortion, and you can literally terminate a pregnancy the day before birth, legally. Of course, that probably doesn't happen in practice, but it seems to me not simply a matter of "my body, my choice" when the baby is grown enough to live outside the womb.

>>2390197
Downies, and most of the genetic disorders are either de novo mutations, and therefore not carried by parents, or like Huntington's, they do not affect person's ability to reproduce and therefore not subject to natural selection. That is also why we still die of cancer.

Better example for humans defying natural selection would be glasses and contact lenses.

I see no reason not to sterilise some people.

File: 1487082219826.jpg (166KB, 486x666px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 486x666px

>>2390857
>Downies, and most of the genetic disorders are either de novo mutations, and therefore not carried by parents, or like Huntington's, they do not affect person's ability to reproduce and therefore not subject to natural selection. That is also why we still die of cancer.
Abort them anyway.

>>2390494
>every human has a right to decency and life
>except really young humans. You can murder them if they pose an inconvienience to you.

What did liberals mean by that?

>>2390197
It is exactly survival of the fittest, right now. If you survived, then you were fit enough. Medicine and the like doesn't undo evolution, it just means that selection pressures have changed.

itt: manlets are afraid of eugenics

>>2391363
>he doesn't want to be a manlet

>>2390197
We are efficient at it, in our own way.
Longer necks - food from the tree tops VS. Big, versatile brain - manage to make long contraption to pick fruit from where you can't reach
Perfectly streamlined body - faster when hunting and avoiding predators VS. Intelligence and the ability to fly over the atlantic in flying vehicles.
Our intelligence is our adjustment against natural selection. We've just set the bar high. We are not exempt from it.

>>2391315
Abortion-ready fetuses ain't babies. Sorry.

>>2390340
jealous poorfag detected

File: 1447421548475.jpg (81KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 633x758px

>>2391315
>go to take a shower
>realized I shed some dead skin cells while scrubbing
>immediately panic, close all the blinds and curtains to eliminate any witnesses to this tragic murder of human life
>open up the drain and start trying as hard as I can to scrape the cells out of the drain, just to see if they're still alive
>no good, I burst into tears, begging God for forgiveness
>hold a somber funeral that night for the millions of clumps of cells (human beings) lost in tragic shower accidents every night
>vow never to bathe ever again
>my entire community gets together later that week to hold a candlelight vigil for our fellow human beings, but it ends early because everyone smells awful and no one wants to be around anyone else
Such is life in Fundieland.

>>2391482
>My pathetic strawman
put that in the record book.

>>2390129
We used to have social engineering to the extent that we didn't NEED eugenics.

So what happened?

>>2391577
People who have never looked out the windows of their ivory towers started telling others how the world should be run.

In a perfect world I think eugenics would be upheld. However, since we don't have the technology to detect it in the fullest degree, nor a "bigger picture" morality I don't think it would happen any time soon.

I do have a question though; would eugenics extend to sterilizing people who don't have genetic shortcomings per say but rather would make terrible parents? How can personality and life history be taken into account?

>>2390437
You were doing well until you called Health concerns "eugenics".

Eugenics is mostly focused on erasing traits undesireable to society; not medicine; and will fuck up bad by stimulating inbreeding of wanted traits.

Eugenics can try to hide itself as a medical concern; but its pure bullshit. Its a pseudoscience.

>>2390129
If you are retarded and confuse Epigenetics with Medical Transhumanism; yeah; of course.

>>2392253
How is removing heritable illnesses "pseudoscience"? Yes obviously using it to artificially select for whatever arbitrary traits like hair color is pointless, but that's just a byproduct. The real merit of eugenics is curing heritable disorders and birth defects.

>>2390232
>implying the cost of CRISPR isn't going down and down and down by the year

your aristocracy is built on fantasies and romanticism like all muh nostalgia for the 17th century XD delusions. genetic engineering and the resources required to learn will be available to all and there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT BITCH

>>2390232
>nobility creates superhumans
>superhumans breed and make more superhumans
>superhumans outbreed regular humans
>eventually natural selection takes place and superhumans outnumber humans
>eventually, all of humanity has been uplifted

even in your scenario a "new aristocracy" is just unrealistic

>>2390129
Yes. As we post right now, many women are suffering Gender Disappointment Depression, a very real and not made up condition where women are disappointed their healthy baby is not the gender of their preference.

Shabbo goys we definitely need to allowed genetic manipulation on account of the feelings of these women!

>http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-07/women-using-ivf-to-choose-sex-of-their-babies/8234798

>Kate, 29, already has two boys and is five months pregnant with her third boy — a revelation that left her "gutted".

"I went to the bedroom and cried for a really long time," she says.

"Then my husband came in and he cried as well.