What are the Pros and Cons of Eugenics?

It's impossible because it goes against NATURAL LAW, it doesn't coincide with the natural order of our nature (which is EXACTLY why our society is failing, we are trying to "beat" nature)

It is only logical to assume that in the long-term, going against the will of Nature is going to end in disaster, we have to let Nature run its course (which we aren't, either way)

I can imagine a dystopian scenario where people have every gene for aggression/rebellion replaced, become docile cucks perfect for the hyper modern civilization.

Couldn't we just breed ourselves to failure?
Genetic disorders may be just natures trial and error and we as results of nature shouldn't really interfere with it. So I suppose.

Well it must. Nobody will accept it because the number of desirable people will always be smaller than that of undesirable ones before eugenics has been accepted and practiced. Not even just talking about race. For instance it could be the strongest and smartest black people being spared and cultured while the dumbest and/or weakest get culled or left aside for testing in the breeding programs. Obviously you'll make the racial IQ of blacks rise and they'll be healthier yet will all of them support it especially those that are undesirable? No. In fact you'll be viewed like some sort of monster for trying to implement control on the most wild part of any person.

It could be for whites. Some whites being more desirable and others being undesirable.

i Would somehow agree with you. What is the most natural governmental form in that case Dutchbro?

Tribes/small communities

Tay-Sachs is a weird one. Having one allele of it seems to result in increased cortical thickness which makes you smarter but having two copies of the gene will result in horrible deaths of children. It affects more than just Jews it's quite common in any small European population like Ireland or even the French Quebec population.

Another weird genetic trait that could be erased would be children born without a spleen. It's only being rigorously researched now because they've started to screen for it in family histories and they think it might be more common than previously thought because they never used to do autopsies on babies that were seen as natural deaths.

Whatever humanity does be it good or bad, wrong or right, logical or illogical is of nature. Don't you think we're actually favored by nature simply because we're able to aware of it? Go ahead and try to ask a ape about nature, or a lion or a bird. They'll just stare at you blankly. Nature doesn't exist for animals because they have no self-awareness they're of nature. They simply follow instincts. Man can alter his/her instincts or revert them back to their base. Something the sort of a almost self-aware biological A.I.

but nature doesn't work like that either right? Just gasses the undesirables and lets the desirables to live. That's not how nature works all the time right?

>What would be it's effects on the long term vs short term.
The big problem, is removing genes that are later needed for the survival of the species when the environment changes, or there is some pandemic.
Women practice eugenics anyway through sexual selection. No need to go beyond that.

what makes you think it isn't happening at the moment?

Nature doesn't have a moral compass or a concept of what is good and what is bad.

Humans do and we could elevate ourselves.

Should they be lead by Monarchist bound by religion?

You already live in a world where aggression and male hormones are viewed as a disorder man.

It has happened through R-strategists being rewarded by the modern welfare state, true.

By tradition and ancestral worship

True, and? We should just embrace it?

>cons
None

>Couldn't we just breed ourselves to failure?
That's exactly what's happening the more time passess and we ignore the eugenics question or worse yet end up opposing it.

>Genetic disorders may be just natures trial and error and we as results of nature shouldn't really interfere with it
It's like a built-in mechanism that's constantly overloaded the more humanity expands in population. Disorders will keep rising. Weak people will get born more and won't realize there's something wrong with them and eventually civilization will be impossible to maintain at its current level.

>Whatever humanity does be it good or bad, wrong or right, logical or illogical is of nature
Logic could be beyond nature.I am just saying it could. Because nature is not very logical.

>Go ahead and try to ask a ape about nature, or a lion or a bird. They'll just stare at you blankly. Nature doesn't exist for animals because they have no self-awareness they're of nature.

Well in that case I will argue that we as humans have a special place in the universe and are not like animals.

>True, and? We should just embrace it?
no
its destructive

You do know what nature had planned for us right? We should be extinct yet we stole fur from animals when we had none ourselves, made weapons because we had no natural ones and made tools because our hands had limits to their usefulness. Ignoring or opposing eugenics is like going against everything we are simply because it's small yet hard to take step because it affects our bestial instincts deeply.

It's not intellect or some rebellious spirit that sets apart man from beast it's self-awareness. From that self-awareness you have knowledge. From knowledge you have wisdom and from wisdom you know what needs to be done for the betterment of everything.

>Because nature is not very logical.
Yet it made man. The same animal that defines and acknowledges logic exists. Nature isn't some intellect or god perched somewhere it's simply another part of us that will never be purged because its what gives us will to do things regardless what they are. We could end up modifying ourselves so we don't resemble humans or anything alive or end up blowing the planet yet it will always have been nature's will all along.

So no free will no divine providence?

i don't know man i think we should debate more on this. I am just too sleepy and tired at the moment

>So no free will
What's more likely that the universe will bend its knee to what you want or that you fool yourself you wanted it? Everything that defines us has always been forced on us by things outside our control. You can try to lower the number of uncontrollable things to say 1 or even 0.1 but regardless how many 0s you add you'll never lower it to an absolute 0 because that would mean you would've never existed in the first place.

>no divine providence?
Anything can be divine if you wish it to be such.

>Well the pros are obvious eliminating genetic diseases, promoting health, etc.
And to give birth to all new genetic diseases, if it even changes anything seeing how two healthy individual can still have a kid with down syndrome or Cerebral palsy
>I can't think of any real cons
Cons is that it works in theory but not in reality

The only con I can come up with for eugenics is: who's making the decisions? It's easy for many cases but hard in others. Do you want to give full reproductive authority to the ZOGged state?
No. Eugenics is, as it has always been, a family matter.

>Do you want to give full reproductive authority to the ZOGged state?
That's already happening *cough*56*cough*.

Although it is true that we cannot control any outside influence of our environment, we CAN choose to change our environment itself, and therefore its consequences.

Free will is HOLY, it MUST be adhered by, there are NO EXCEPTIONS, think about the "Vampire" stories, you have to invite the vampire into your home! This is no coincidence, there are many treasure troves of truth, hidden right in plain sight!

That image is cringe.

>that pic
don't be rude to death, he always wins

It works, any modern breeding program is just hardcore eugenics, best example is pig breeding which never fell for the mistakes cow and dog breeding did, cows having inbreeding and dogs having aesthetic rather than health selection

It's ancient Greek mythology you fucking retard. Hermes fighting Death with the Caduceus. Read something that isn't a burger wrapper before your diabetes gives you glaucoma.

The effects would be the same as dog breeding. Specific traits would be encouraged/discouraged artificially. But the term eugenics is too broad to say anything specific about the effects.

More specifically, let's say there's a policy that only allows men with IQ at least 120 to procreate. Others would be forcefully sterilized. There would definitely be an effect of increased average IQ, likely increased productivity and less wealth inequality. The problem is that we have no way of knowing what negative side effects the selection will have. It might lead to mental health problems becoming more prevalent, or some other desirable quality becoming rare. This is why non-artificial (sexual) selection is more powerful - as it takes all desirable attributes into account simultaneously.

>nobody likes dying
LMAO, did you ask the dead if they liked it?
This has nothing to do with what the dying one theoretically thinks. It's only the opinion of those who live that matters.

>What are the Pros and Cons of Eugenics?
There are only pros, the world always sets itself right one way or another
The Natural Law

Attached: 1544590890453.jpg (1200x854, 133K)

If you want to let nature run its course why don't you get naked and fuck off to the forests in Europe?
Niggers had a policy of letting nature do its thing and they were living like shit ever since day one.

This is very true, but it only works so long as society and its norms and values are not dictated by foreign entity (JUDEN) that subvert the morals of a people, for instance changing what is attractive in a person (NIGGERS & """MONEY""" (FIAT)).

Is the quality of being susceptible to propaganda desirable? Maybe it's linked to some other good quality, but evolved in circumstances when mass migration wasn't possible - traveling was expensive and no mass media.

Literally every single woman on Earth is *EXTREMELY* susceptible to manipulation and propaganda, why do you think they weren't allowed to exit the kitchen?

all pros, the cons are that a bunch of kikes run it.

Eugenics should be voluntary... it should be left to the individual whether they want to carry out eugenics against their bloodline.

Which basically means keeping healthy, and mixing with the genes you want to see in your bloodline.

I'm not so much keep on genocide the retards and all that, because they are great. Maybe we could gas the government/elite kikes if we really have to, but i don't see why we cant all get along in a transparent world where we know who the pedophile and psychopaths are (maybe tatto it on their face) so we shun and cast them aside (they would return to being the untouchables that they really are)...

because we would lose an enormous amount of genetic material that could hurt our species

>I'm not so much keep on genocide the retards and all that, because they are great.
Do you realize how expensive is to keep those people in your countries? They will be given aid by the state from money from your pocket.
That's not a very great thing to me.
Why would you keep em?