Form a purely utilitarian standpoint, is eugenics reasonable?

Christfags will say no but don't listen to them, Eugenics is the way of the future.

drive by shootings
duck fast or get Darwined mother fucker

yes

Soft eugenics, yes. Hard eugenics can lead to a purity spiral.
People willingly checking out of reproduction because they're a genetic mess is good. and should be encouraged.

the same way it occurs in a an ant colony, a pack of wolves, a flock of birds, a school of fish or a field of daisies you dolt.
> success leads to propagation of the genes of the successful
> failure reduces the spread of unsuccessful genes
> mate selection is determined by species-specific cues and preferences
> cant get a mate, fight harder, call louder, wear brighter plumage, perform a more appealing mating dance.
go back to middle school and take remedial biology.

This is the fate of all commies and that's a good thing.

Attached: ceaucescu execution.jpg (800x672, 93K)

pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/eip/article/viewFile/9447/9135

eugenics in the soviet union

thanks nigger

Yes but then Jow Forums would extinct

Then you side with progressives like Margaret Sanger. You are no conservative.

>utilitarian
For what utility would we be solving for? What . makes us qualified for selection better than billions of years of evolution? Seems like probability is we'd fuck things up due to ignorance and biases.

I completely support state incentivized sterilization. Like, “ooh you just got busted for your third B&E, you can either serve 10 years or snip-snip Daquarius”. Or giving low IQ people $30000 right out of high school if they get hysterectomies. Shit would pay for itself in 15 years or less.

cringe bud

I have no problem with eugenics in theory or morality. The main worry I would have about a widely implemented eugenics program is the risk of selecting and eliminating an important trait.

I like this user’s example of ADHD. Some level of diversity, like cognitive diversity, may be important for the maintenance of a society. If a generation or several has a misunderstanding about any sort of trait and considers it in a negative light, than that can be of an exponentially greater impact in the future.

People with good genes can still be worthless pieces of shit. Positive eugenics (ie people with traits we like, go have more babies) is probably fine, but the alleged benefits of negitive eigenics (ie murder/sterilize "undesireables") in no way make up for their absolute moral degeneracy. Genes only determine a persons potential, not what they will actually amount to. A person with downs, for exanple, is perfectly capable of positively contributing to society.

cringe bud

it goes deeper than that bro.
"adhd" is like "autism spectrum disorders"
the "symptoms" are so vague and ill defined that ANYONE can find themselves on the "spectrum" and where you sit on that "spectrum" is impossible to define.
this sort of naebulous bullshit tunrs EVERYONE into a victim, just like the current "sexaulity spectrum" or "faggotry rainbow" exists solely to prove to every person alive that "gays aint so bad, youre a little bit gay yourself..."

I am a biology major working on my master's and eugenics is just mendelian reproduction.
We eat GMOs and we marry WHO WE LIKE. That's eugenics. You marry someone who is pretty so your babies are not negros or mongoloids.
In my family we are Italian and we have mixed with Germans, Irish, Polish; simply to enhance our lineage.
What we see with Soros and the Media, its a push for an hybridized race.
Why? Too lose evolutionary treats like blue eyes or blonde hair.
Some of us, we are working in vectors to make the white genes dominant. When done, a white girl could marry a Mexican and the kid would come out White.
There is hope in science.

The only shit that will be used for is fighting a receding hairline and lasting longer in bed.