Is eugenics good or bad?

>>130307172
Every ideology is bad when executed to its fullest extend. Those kinds of Utopia are a tyranny, which makes them a dystopia.

>>130307172
Bad

Qualifying life based on arbitrary traits determined by those is power is unethical, tyrannical and frankly immoral and anti-human

>>130307172
Without eugenics we'd still be apes. The Ancients have done us good.

>>130307172
Good. We do it with every plant and animal we cultivate. Why not people?

File: race.jpg (54KB, 477x637px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 477x637px

>>130307172

>>130307172
Eugenics is bad as it violates the dignity and rights of other humans.

Good.

>>130307918
>Qualifying life based on arbitrary traits determined by those is power is unethical, tyrannical and frankly immoral and anti-human

Found the nigger

>>130307918
eugenics is a moral good

>>130307172
Bad because humans are crap at effectively breeding healthy animals just look at fucking dogs with their bloat, hip dysplasia, thyroid problems, and although its benign tons of fatty tumors.

>>130307172
It's something that we already practice with animals. We just don't do it with humans because we don't want to admit that some are inferior.

>>130307172
It's only really bad when it's forced on a population. If you want to have your own designer baby and fuck an Asian woman so your kid has a higher iq that's your business.

Depends. If it's being done as a vanity project, like muh blue eyes, then yes. If it's being done to advance survival prospects of the group, then no. Though to be honest, with recent tech advances focused around designing powerful tools that are simple to use and biotechnology advances like crispr being a thing, eugenics via selective breeding is no longer something even worth considering. All we need are people smart enough to know how to look things up and creative enough to move forward. A 180 IQ genius isn't something necessary in the future. And if we ever do want that for some reason, we can modify the genetics of the population with a virus so that babies born have the code needed injected to them so they can express those traits.

>>130310920
*then yes it is bad.

>>130307172
Good. We could be creating literal gods but no we can't do that because it will make the lesser humans feel uncomfortable.

Yes it can be good, for instance, by preventing drug users of having sons, mostly for heroíne wich is a common way to get Aids.

>>130311138
Eugenics is the assigning and evaluating of social and mental traits based on physical traits. its the kind of thinking that led to the nazi's belief that aryans are the superior race.

genetic manipulation on the other hand will lead to creating near perfect humans, not eugenics. Also the term genetic manipulation does not have the baggage that Eugenics does. if it's going to move forward, then the term Eugenics must disappear from the standard lexicon.

>>130307172
I wish all Germans were wiped out. They are a bunch of ugly beings.

>>130309776
It's not a good idea for humanity to determine for itself what is inferior and what isn't.

That's nature's job.

I'd rather we don't completely homogenize the entire species. Hyper-adaptation for a single environment leads to disaster if that environment ever changes. We need genetic diversity to prevent the species from being wiped out by a single calamity and human-directed eugenics could seriously fuck that up if we aren't careful.

>>130312997
>nazi's belief that aryans are the superior race.

That wasn't a nazi belief though.
"aryan" was the ideal to strive for, not a declaration of "we wuz kangs"

Do you think Nazi's also killed everyone without blonde hair and blue eyes?

>>130316593
do we need genetic disorders and other disorders that have a strong genetic component to them?

>>130307172

Violent eugenics (ie gas chambers) is bad because violence against innocents is always bad.

But non-violent eugenics, like governments encouraging poor niggers to not reproduce, is a good thing.

>>130307918
>Arbitrary

>>130317661
>Violent eugenics (ie gas chambers) is bad
I disagree. It can be very very good if applied correctly

>>130307172
pretty good, could solve alot of genetic issues passively in a matter of generations. for example offer incentives for voluntary infertility ect. people probably imagine it more as death camps and evil doctors making frankenstein people in the hopes of a super human.im reality that is not the case

>>130317262
Let's look at sickle cell anemia - a genetic 'disorder':

If you have sickle cell anemia, there are a host of problems that can crop up, but the overriding one is that your body is less efficient at oxygen transport and blood clots more easily. However, the shape of the blood cells help prevent infection by malaria.

Sickle cell anemia is a 'disorder' that is actually very beneficial IF the environment you live in exposed you to malaria constantly. If your environment does not, then sickle cell anemia is actually undesirable.

So you see here that something we consider a genetic 'disorder' is not actually 100% a bad thing.

Consider again, that we have genes controlling aggression - africans exhibit and express these genes more than europeans or asians do. Should those be removed so people become non-aggressive and docile sheep? I'm sure there are a lot of people in power who would love nothing more than to turn the general public into low IQ laborers incapable of critical thought or aggression.

But then, are such genetically modified 'people' even human anymore?

This is the inherent danger in eugenics and genetic engineering. Just because you think a particular trait is beneficial or detrimental does not mean everyone believes it is.

>>130308069
5pbp

File: 1497715804295.jpg (586KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1000x1000px

>>130307172
Eugenics is everything

>>130307172
The problem with breeding humans is that it is a slow process. Unlike dogs which get to reproductive age in a year, humans take 13 years.

Simple. Only allow soldiers to breed.

>>130307172
It's the best.
Natural sexual selection is failing since modern society allows the weakest and stupidest to survive (the exploding population of Africa is an extreme example).
Government needs to step in, dole out breeding privileges based on IQ and health.
Earth will be taken over by low IQ tan mongrels because everybody gets buttflustered if you suggest that low-IQ subhumans shouldn't have the right to birth 5 kids. Apparently it's a "human right".
I legitimately hope the government starts slipping sterilizing agents into vaccines and water supply etc in targeted low-income areas.