Are there any serious arguments why we shouldn't practice

>>37758402
if eugenics was practiced you'd be the first to be sterilized.

>>37758421

You are aware that that is an argument in its favor right ?

>>37758436
Eh, not really. The only people that are currently pushing it are degenerate themselves. Why would you want a degenerate with an inflated sense of worth deciding who else is a degenerate.

pot calling the kettle black.

it will just manifest itself as political purging

Because we haven't worked out ethics yet. Who is to say what/who deserves changing/correcting/purging?

>>37758753

And even then, who's to say which traits will be best for the future?

The genetic engineering we already practice on plants predisposes us to massive famines if a disease arises that targets that one set of genetics very well; with most of the crops being of that same type, the disease ravages the population. A more diverse population would have better chances at surviving this.

To apply eugenics ethically is impossible because we don't know what we'll need in the future, without even going into what we're likely to do with that power, which is just condemn people we don't like or can profit from the deaths of for whatever reason.

>>37758421
This is literally the only argument I ever see against it. Every time anyone even brings up eugenics it's always about how the OP would be sterilized, etc.

>>37758402
We already practice eugenics unconsciously, why do yo think betas exist? They're not ought to reproduce.

>>37758402

Are you implying we aren't already?

Number of kids born with some diseases has been divided by 20 and science will just hand us new and better tests every year.
The choice belongs to the woman, but it so happens that almost all women will do the same individual choice, which takes out of the government's hands the burden of imposing eugenics.
It's freedom, or semantics, but it does the job.

> Eugenics gone wrong is India, as they abort girls

How exactly do you tell millions of people they lost the genetic lottery and will be sterilized without causing societal uprisings?

>>37759610

Ask Indira Gandhi, she sterilized 6 millions of Indian men.

> Inb4 some /pol/ about 6 millions

>>37758421
I wouldn't notice

File: 068.jpg (366KB, 1600x1053px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1600x1053px

>>37759610
The chance of riots or revolution is already diminished if people have food, homes, jobs, and gf's (in that order)

You can compensate defectives. Normal people might complain, but such systems already exist in many places (autismbux, disability). Just attach sterilization as a prerequisite. I think Florida made an attempt to regularly drug test those receiving welfare

You can offer compensation for abortion and make medical screenings during pregnancy mandatory. Prenatal screening can already accurately determine the chance of a baby having Down's Syndrome if it is not aborted. Perhaps you've seen pic related? Their doctor fully told them this should be expected. The couple carried out the pregnancy due to religious beliefs.

America actually had quite a few eugenics movements before WW2, some of which influenced the Nazis. For example, Planned Parenthood was founded in 1916 and was originally a "stealth" eugenics movement that was very active in the Negro community. The difference is that USA used positive eugenics (abortions, incentives, education) while Germany used negative eugenics (propaganda and genocide).

File: 5d2.png (228KB, 798x566px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 798x566px

>>37758402

BIological eugenics is good
>breeding people to be the smartest, strongest, best or efficent people

cosmetic eugenics is bad
>breeding people to be the "prettiest" by social norms, custom designer babies with custom hair/skin

look at dogs,
dalmations might be nice doggos, but they go blind because of piggybacking shit traits

eugenics should be used to compensate for lack of environmental stimulation for evolution

>if all the sickly tards are allowed to live and reproduce, we will continue to introduce those traits into society. thanks modern medicine.

>if we keep the traits recessive, then we can after several generations breed out the weak genes instead of having nature cull the week. as much as /Pol/ talks about interracial relationships being bad, they are actually more effective for a global society. Not the best however for a specialized society.

Think how mut dogs are healtier but not as task effective as specific breeds

>keep skin tones that are effective in both high polar and equatorial regions (not as effective as single tone to one region, but prolonged habitation is not the norm)

>multicultural language proficiency allows for better communication

The world is harsh technology negates this, but giving people the choice to make custom babies and they will always meme breed children (muh aryans/ pure blooded [insert national]) screwing up the human race more because chads and stacies

these children are not healthy, because their existence is only due to technology, not environmental Darwinism

>>37758421
>implying I have a problem with this
I shouldn't be alive.

>>37758421
predictable post

>>37758842
Just sterilize people with debilitating genetic illnesses, like brittle bone disease and cystic fibrosis.

>>37758402
Nope, it's inevitable if you ask me.

>>37758402
you cant really get to the point where its really practical without getting into some shady moral territory at best and straight up genocide at worst.

>>37760365
genetically predictable post

>>37758402
China's doing it secretly if not openly