To accept evolution and to deny racial IQ contrast would mean that everyone had the same velocity of intelligence increase, … which in this chaotically stirred world is unlikely.
I’m not too concerned with being politically correct.
The tags are there because people who search such things are often interested in this kind of topic. I’m not saying I agree with all of the tags I used.
Yeah. That post was 100% about avoiding/curing/disabling the procreation of bad genes. An operation like this would have to be set up very strategically though. But I digress.
—————-
I’m just getting to re-read your question. I answered it late last night after a long day at work. Avoiding the unwanted one IS killing it off.
Just realized…
Now that I have a look back at the definition and some time to think about it
Someone corrected me.
I misunderstood the definition.
Killing the gene is not for limiting the sex selection. It’s for the health of the population.
Cause and effect confusion.
My eugenics post isn’t even about eugenics then… … … … It says nothing about who has sex with who
I started using the term “eugenics” because it was under the context of sterilization and such. That’s probably how I came up with that definition of it.
Just had a discussion about Eugenics.
My conclusion was the same as before.
Currently it would be counter productive.
The stabilization of resources (along with other things I’m too tired to remember to mention) would make the process easier, and perhaps more accepted.
I noticed that a lot of people thought I meant racial cleansing or killing off people in wheel chairs. Those people aren’t hold backs on society by default. They have the potential to make positive-net contributions.
The conditions I’m concerned with are those the result in negative-net contributions.
How a contribution is quantified is completely another step in the process. The goal was to see how this would fit, if it was to fit now. Then take that and project it after other goals.
It’s interesting to see the real connotation behind the word eugenics. I took it just by definition. Not getting into US history or Nazi history. Just by the definition.
Welp. I’m tired. Good night.
“Let’s say your own little brother was autistic. It wouldn’t be his fault at all, but from what you’re telling me, you deem it ethically right to kill him.”
Someone played this card.
They completely forgot the point of eugenics.
Killing full grown “defectives” right now would traumatize the population. So that would be counter productive
Turns out, not even I can argue this bullshit. (I have a feeling I was just in a “pick a fight” kinda mood) Everyone has some level of use, and those who don’t probably won’t get their genes passed on
If genetic structure was really a concern then it would imply we need to strip away everything that is not within the “ok window”… That means killing off species. I’d love to discuss this more with those who are pro-eugenics.
***Bold shit ahead***
I like to recognize Eugenics as an internal evolutionary pressure; the species evolving is correcting itself for the sake of its environment.
For the whole of this post, “defective” refers to those chosen to be filtered out of existence.
Eugenics denies defective people rights.
Some methods of eugenics suggest that defectives can’t have offspring.
Some methods of eugenics suggest that defectives be killed at birth.
Some methods of eugenics suggest interfering with the genome on the molecular level.
Some methods of eugenics suggest that there should be a tax deduction for the defective ones if they sterilize themselves.
I love the topic of eugenics, because it is SO taboo and it is directly associated with humanities future. I know and love people who are subject to the filtering of harsher more purifying forms of eugenics. I also love the world and the human species as a whole. Most people would put their close loved ones first, but I think that’s largely due to the fact that there is immediate opposition, and no one likes immediate opposition. So we justify our fears with emotional hang ups. Emotions are what we live for, but what emotion is greater? The emotion for the temporarily existing defective or the emotion for the immortal greater whole?
I’d rather see a world full of happy healthy people rather than a world full of sympathy and tedious accommodations.
Someone could call a eugenicist heartless.
Anti-Eugenics: “You really want to tell Bob McDefekt to not have kids? Don’t you want kids? You’re a sociopath”
Pro-Eugenics: “In about 6 generations, there will 25 more people who suffer from DefektCopulosis, you really want people to live with that for their entire lives? Wishing and dreaming their entire lives that they weren’t?”
It goes both ways, eugenicist are just looking out for more people. No one said it was easy.
Checkmate
BTW: The question “who decides?” doesn’t negate the stance that filtering could make future generations stronger. We could apply that question to every social decision we’ve ever made.
And to let you know, there is a strategy to let defectives decide for themselves.
Illusia Co. is now implementing the opportunity for the genetically challenged to enhance their way of living. By restricting your genetic contribution to just 1 child, you can gain an 8% tax deduction, a free education in labor management or accounting, and priority job placement for your degree.
Full restriction grants a 20% tax deduction plus the previously stated benefits
This is a great opportunity for you to contribute to the health of future generations.
————————————————-
This is not a real opportunity, but this is an opportunity I would hope to mirror in some way, some day.
