Is eugenics wrong or the best way to deal with human suffering?

Objectively it's an efficient solution for a complicated problem. Unfortunately it's classified as "unethical" or "immoral" to the majority of the population.

>>38165502
Honestly it is. It should have been employed intensively since the early 20th century.

>ultimately ends up inbreeding

>>38165502
>>38165575

The thing about the western world is that we believe in the "everyone is equal" and "you control your own destiny" memes.

Eugenics implies that some people are better than others, and that your destiny is limited by your genetics (e.g. getting neutered for having shit genes) so eugenics goes against our culture.

Go to china with that shit. Or pol. Both are containment anyway

Also, human instrumentality>eugenics.

>>38165575
This. I remember a program on the tv was discussing it. The arguments for it were to end long term human suffering and ease the cost of the tax payer. The arguments against it were feelings and "muh nazis, tall, blonde hair and blue eyes."

>>38165502
honestly the whole "eugenics is bad" meme needs to seriously die already. removing natural selection will result in far more suffering that its worth.

>>38165601
How exactly? Please explain, origi

>eugenics are immoral
>women are allowed to select based on genetics

what's the difference?

i believe it is unethical to use authoritarian measures to implement eugenics. i prefer what i term "soft eugenics" (patent not pending)

for example, i would very much support a measure incentivizing sterilization or chemical castration of individuals with exceedingly low IQ, repeated criminal tendencies (especially violent), high probability of passing along heritable conditions or diseases, and hell, maybe even the very-poor as a blanket

these people are rather likely to impulsively take a 5k-10k sum of cash, so the measure would be reasonably successful. these people also are not the ones to play the stock market, invest, or save. so you'll get a nice wee boost to the local economy from the spending (i suppose liquor distributors will love it)

i would like to see such measures put into place- i'm very mistrustful of gub'mint and anti-authoritarian generally, but i feel that this measure is acceptable for all that.

>lots of anons talking about eugenics
>If you are here you're part of the disposable humans
How does that feel

File: Eugenics_congress_logo.png (110KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 500x384px

>>38165691
I could ask you the same thing faggot

>>38165675
God you sexist pig, men shouldn't try and control the creation of life! While we're at it men shouldn't have any say on me murdering my unborn child too!

I think a better question would be if the entire population was controlled at birth, would any of us be here right now? We wouldn't be robots right now would we?

>>38165691
Good cause then I'd be dead

>>38165613
People who have shit genes or are poor shouldn't be allowed to reproduce for the sake of their children.
Or if they are allowed there should be efficient, painless and legal ways of killing yourself if you don't like the life that you've been given.

>>38165691
>eugenics are somehow immoral
>women are allowed to have as many abortions as they want
Really makes one think

>>38165688
would you be against low IQ losers becoming traps as a form of eugenics?

I'm sure there was something too it but I don't think it's some magical solution to the worlds problems. The Nazis basically ruined the movement however. I bet china might try and bring it back though.

File: Administration - 100.0% (0.0%).png (179KB, 461x518px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 461x518px

>>38165601
Imagine, being this fucking idiotic

>>38165691
good, I don't want to spread my shitty genes

File: bateman.jpg (60KB, 500x401px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x401px

>>38165613
Ironic part about going to /pol/ is they won't admit that the nazi's killed off the eugenics movement. People like Margret Sanger had their hands deep in supporting the poor black, italians and irish shed some weight. But the sauerkraut hanz left made the money back away.

Objectively it is the best way short of gene editing/cloning. In the means of most positive traits passed on, net improvement for society. The later has a shot to fix some things. But how far does that perfect hole go?

>>38165502
I don't know. Sure, genetics limit you a lot in life. Being born extremely ugly, stupid, short, etc. will have negative consequences for you. It means you are much less likely to be a CEO and have a lot of success in life.

But the point is, does this necessarily have to mean suffering? Why couldn't one be happy and content with what they have? Because they could have had more? But does being content really have to be tied to being socially successful? It doesn't. One can be content even without being a Chad, it's a choice.

Sure, you can choose not to be content, but then you are choosing suffering, misery and likely suicide.

>>38165818
> One can be content even without being a Chad, it's a choice.

why do I think this is a blatant lie?

>>38165841
Because it's difficult. It means you have to derive your own value from yourself, not from how others perceive you. But the point is, you could choose not to hate yourself for being inferior.

As I said, it's not easy since if you have negative outlook on life and on yourself, confirmation bias will try to convince you every day that you can do nothing but hate yourself. Basically it's a matter of outlook.

>>38165729
i don't think that being a trap is generally very good for an individual's psyche, performance, stability, and all manner of desirable traits. not a fan of boipussi either, so i could not support such a measure.

>>38165727
Women having abortions would be less of a problem if we employed eugenics because we would have less asshole roasties
And also, robots are the scum of society living off neetbux, better if we didn't exist.

>>38165869
I think you're just misusing the word choice, you can choose to drown out your mind with entertainment so you don't realize you're not chad. You will always be aware of that unless you live on an island with no competition and think you're god.

>>38165896
No, you're missing the point. I'm not saying ignore. You should be aware of not being a Chad. But tell me, why does not being a Chad mean you can not be content with what you have?

>>38165933
I cannot speak for anyone else, but yeah, It's hell.

File: 1499206074539.jpg (294KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1080x1080px

>>38165933
most of the suffering comes from failing to live up to expectations.

>>38165968
But why is it hell? Let's say you want to buy a computer. Chances are, you're not going to have enough money to buy the absolutely very best PC you can get that has the most computing power today. Does that mean that you shouldn't be happy with the computer that you get that fits your budget? Because that computer is going to be good for most normal things you're going to want to do. Sure, you're probably not gonna be able to do heat dispersion simulations, use very demanding CAD programs or render extremely high quality videos. Does that mean you have to hate the computer you have? No.

Same with your life, this comparison with Chad is just needless perfectionism, that doesn't do you any favors. Just tell me, are you like this in everything you do? Say you want to get a lunch, would you rather be hungry and hate yourself because you can't get extremely expensive food? It's likely you won't. You only use this when it concerns your self-image. You use it to beat yourself down. It doesn't have to be hell, you choose to make it one.

Not to mention, that if you work hard on yourself, you can improve. Quite a lot actually, if you really apply yourself. Yeah you probably won't be the top 0.001%, but you can be the top 10%. Of course this depends on what your starting position was, but even then. Hard work takes you far.

>>38165986
Then maybe instead of beating yourself up about eugenics and genes, you should focus on what you can do to fulfill your own expectations. There is lots.

>>38166105
I'm too drunk to respond right now

>>38165502

it is immoral since it implies coercion.

unless you're talking about social Darwinism which is the only ethical form of eugenics

>>38165691
pretty funny

>>38165688
the only kind of eugenics i could ever imagine being justified is for use against criminals convicted of serious crimes. I don't think being poor or being dumb should disqualify you from being able to have kids. If you aren't financially(or otherwise) capable of supporting your kids, that's one thing, but otherwise I wouldn't be able to justify castrating you.
Another solution is to set a minimum number of kids that you have to have as a member of society. If everyone(including smart people) were to have at least 3 kids, then you wouldn't have to worry as much about stupid people out-breeding smart people. i.e. stupid people having 2-4 kids, smart people have 0-1. You could even set a cap too. i.e. no more than 4 kids.

>>38165502
Good taste in angels, famalam.
Sachiel is my favorite.

>>38165841
Beats me. Most people aren't chad, and most people are content with that. Either way, it's impossible for everyone to be the best.

>>38165691
yes
I'd rather be born as someone who doesn't have a family history of obesity and mental ilness

Yes. Abortion is eugenic. It's great to cull the people.

>>38165613
Fuck off.
If you believe that stupid people or poor people deserve to reproduce then you are apart of the problem.
There should be a law banning someone from a certain income from having kids

If we can use it to reduce mental illness and disabilities then I'm all for it.

>>38165502
Instrumentality is the true key to dealing with human suffering.

Why talk about eugenics when every western country employs dysgenics AKA welfare to single mothers.