Topic: What is your thoughts on eugenics? (Read 223 times)

Eugenics are bad M'kay.

Are you f'n kidding us?

Any time a government steps in to enforce something upon the body of one of it's citizens we're F'd. What do you not understand about that?

The natural eugenics that have been applied to them only left out the strong but not the smart. Mongolia had zero resources, which means it wasn't quite possible to play with random materials to create things. As you know, most of the inventions were invented by accident, and those accidents had a low chance of happening in a low-resource environment.


True, I misunderstood what you were saying, but giving them information directly won't help; you have to use soft power propaganda to change them, like TV and media in general. I mean when you look deep into any modern society, you realize that 75% of the population are sheep who can be manipulated very easily and will follow their emotions over common sense. Thus, you need to appeal to their emotions to get them where you want them, and even then, it's a very hard task to do. These resources and efforts can be used in better places for better people.

Eugenics does not serve the goal of "the greater good" for everyone; it also serves the greater good for those who will be sterilized. Being weak and stupid will always cause pain and suffering in the end.

I also agree that no information should be banned or charged for. I believe everyone deserves to have an education and a better chance in life, and knowledge should be free.

Clearly your disagreement or the 'nope' part in your post is in regards to giving them for free which I did not mention anywhere in the post you quoted. That part is about giving good quality information and foods to those who will need them. By the way, we wouldn't charge people who desire good information any money or things like that since we got ours for free and it made us better beings. The information will completely reform and help them know how to work for good quality meals to stay alive and help others become better people.

If they had been a little smarter, they would have incorporated that bow strength into a crossbow.

Nope, giving them those things for free will results of them being even more depndit, No matter what you do and how much you give they will not improve if anything they will be worst and they will think that this help your giving them is their right from god.

Actually, people see it as a racial thing, but the fact is that it has been used across the world even before the word 'racism' was added to the dictionary.

Trust me, allowing abortions for children with genetic defects is the best choice. If those children could see what their lives would be like, they would choose to end it before it starts. I have lived with people who had problems since birth, and they did not succeed in life or even make friends. They can't work in any real job, and most of them will never start a family because no woman will love them and live with them. The only one I know who got married was from a rich family, and the girl even cheated on him.

In short term eugenics will be applied to those people naturally and unnaturally; the only difference is that it can be applied without putting them through all of this suffering


Yes, but you don’t have to give it to everyone. A sustainable society is one that gives back what it receives, and once people stop giving back what they have received, the society will collapse.

I agree with you on the issues surrounding the wealthy and politicians, and the solution lies in both unity and nationalism. You can simply choose not to buy from large corporations and refrain from supporting them. This is the only way to stop them, as they don’t magically obtain their money; it comes from the people. Those corporations often don’t spend nearly 10% or even pay that much in taxes due to the loopholes they have exploited meaning they barely gives anything back.

We should give them less and less.


Cuba adopted communism, and what did it get in return? Cuba is struggling. North Korea adopted socialism, and it was a hellhole until the government began to adopt fascism, which is when they started to improve.

Do you know why Nordic countries are the only places where socialism has worked relatively well? It’s largely due to the cultural mindset that promoted eugenics without the people realizing. The Vikings didn’t tolerate weak or dependent individuals other than women. The strongest Vikings also had the greatest number of women, meaning they passed on more genes. This is why you don't see widespread abuse of the welfare program there. I’ve heard from a Swedish friend that slurs are used against anyone who relies on welfare and doesn’t work even if he can. The values of hard work and earning one’s daily bread have been ingrained in their culture for generations till it become part of their genetics as most of them are descendants of strong, capable ancestors who always had a shame of being weak not to mention that in Norse Paganism weakness, dependency is a huge sin, and these religions is still alive today.

We have the resources to feed everyone, to educate everyone, to vaccinate everyone, have hospitals with capacity for everyone sick, nursing homes for everyone old, to teach everyone a second language and to give everyone some form of post highschool education.

There is no scarcity in today's world. It might be hard to believe but all of the world's hunger is cause by bad resource allocation and not by there not being enough. Think of how much food is produced and then ends up in landfills. It might be over 30% of production by some estimates. With industrial farming we could feel the world, yet the only one who sees any advantage from farming at a massive scale are massive corporations. Why then isn't some of the would-be waste developed to developing nations so their people can avoid starvation and focus on building infrastructure?

Maybe because our governments would rather extract resources from there at the maximum rate rather than the land's people seeing any benefit too.

This is a very unfair system. Because even within our "developed" societies, there's a lot of unfairness. Nearly nothing is meritocratic anymore. Politicians, their sons and their grandchildren even seem to get the best jobs. The children of the rich become even more rich than their parents just by virtue of holding a lot of property. We live in a society where the rich become richer constantly and the poor poorer.

If you consider this unfair, you're right. But eugenics is not going to fix it. The root of the problem is called capitalism.

eugenics is not specifically about low IQ
eugenics is not even about just killing off certain demography of people

eugenics is a broad term that covers controlling the genetic purity of a community. it can be about arranged marriages of well bread lineage to sustain a good class of genes. it can be laws that prevent inbreeding of family members and also doing things like allowing abortions of foetuses that have genetic defects.

it can also be about the extremes of castrating and sterilising certain minority cultures to dilute them out of the community gene pool, extremes of racial genocide are also extreme cases

 

Not a good way to solve problem. What the so called sub humans need is light, or better still the consumption of  good quality information and foods. And the high iq ones could easily deteriorate if fed with darkness or bad quality stuff.
By the way, what they call high iq is really not high at all if you know what a mind full of lght is capable of. Beside, only a small part of the mind is trained or developed to master something and they associate it with high iq.. The real iq is knowing or easily understanding alot of things without being taught

Of course you haven't heard of it; they don't want you to hear about it, as they want people to look for the best ways to ensure the nation's success within the box. The Nazis did not use it to justify what they did; there were thousands of Jews with high IQs who were not harmed, mainly doctors.

The core of eugenics is to prevent the offspring of those who cannot live without needing help or who are considered parasites. Those who are lazy, weak, and unintelligent will only hinder the progress of society and the nation as a whole. Welfare, free healthcare, prisons, policing, schooling, and many expenses could be reduced by half if eugenics were applied and In Nazi Germany where education and healthcare were free and the state provides a massive helping program to the people, the term "sub-human" was not referred to a Gypsy or Jew; it referred to those who take more than what they give or could give, and thus, they were perceived as unhelpful and harmful to the present and the future and their offspring will not be better than them so their bloodline needed to end.


Well, humans have always played God's role with animals and plants. You realize that wheat, barley, corn, bananas, and watermelons were not edible thousands of years ago. The eugenics in plants have been used to domesticate those plants to be edible. The same goes for chickens, dogs, and many other farm animals you see or eat today, and this has led to huge success.

And the German philosophy wasn't radical. Can you believe that Hitler was a close friend of Gandhi? Can you believe he supported the liberation of India and Sri Lanka even before the war started? Can you believe he supported the Syrians against the French and the Iraqis against the British? The Nazi ideology goes both ways; Europe belongs to the native whites in the same way these countries belonged to the native blacks and browns. He did not want Jews and gypsies in Europe in the same way he did not want Europeans in Africa, India, or the Middle East.

Maybe if the war hadn't happened, they would have used their capabilities for good. I mean, they made good cars and new improved aircraft, not to mention the art that Hitler was obsessed with. Hell, even the best classics from that century were made in Nazi Germany.


As I mentioned before, Japan is a nation that practiced eugenics since 500 BC when they didn't allow the Burakumin (low IQ, weak physiques, and criminals) to mix their blood with any Japanese or even live in the cities/villages. Japan is a successful nation and always has been.

It's not the role of an imperfect human being to play God's role. The reason why the criminal, stupid and weak people exist in this world side by side with everyone else is beyond our comprehension, but history shows us that to eliminate these people doesn't help societies reaching closer to a concept of perfect world. It's quite the opposite...

You mention Nazi Germany as example of success. And from a technological and scientifical point of view it does make sense, otherwise North Americans and Soviets wouldn't have imported the Nazi scientists after Germany's defeat. However, the lesson is that intelligence allied to perversity towards another human beings resulted in Nazi regime's downfall.

Now imagine if they had used their intelligence for the good, helping the ones who they considered less developed and stupid to thrive, instead of trying to conquer Europe and exterminating determined groups of people. Nazi methods and philosophy were wicked since the beginning. They pursued power at all costs, destroying anyone on their way who would oppose their plans. Very similar methods used by the communists/socialists.

I wouldn't wish to live in a country full of smart, strong, but unscrupulous individuals. Imagine how unsafe, uncertain and unstable a country like that would be... People using their strength and intelligence to dominate and enslave their pairs. A more balanced country is desirable, and I believe USA got it right on this aspect after WWII, achieving positive results along the XX century until the first years of XXI century.

Embarrassingly I didn’t know what eugenics was, this thread has taught me something new today. This is the brief description in the Oxford dictionary: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

What will you debunk exactly? Please tell me what's wrong with anything I said in the post! Everything I mentioned here is the truth, and the mixing of facts is based on what I believe to be a successful nation and society.

You can't tell me that building a huge cannon like the Schwerer Gustav isn't a clear sign of having a successful nation. Or that being able to kill 10% of humanity while literally no one had ever heard of you before you conquered the world isn't a testament to success. And what about confronting an army that sees only its beginning but not its end?

Before we continue this discussion, what signs do you believe indicate a successful society and nation? How do you define that? If you're going to jump in with "The Mongolians and Spartans never created anything good" then you're right, And you probably see a successful nation as one with low crime and highly intelligent people, right?

Okay, do you consider Japan a successful nation? What about the Burakumin? If you read enough about modern Japan and see what those people are like, you can't imagine Japan being this successful nation if those people weren't isolated or allowed to mix their blood with the rest of the Japanese.

Even if eugenics could deliver 50% of the expectations then it’s like flipping a coin. You might get the same result: facing 50%, then 55%, then 60%, until eventually, you are left with heads and no tails. Tell me, what biological science can deliver 100% of its expectations?

In the end, you have to remember that eugenics aligns with the rhythm of evolution, and one could argue that it’s the same concept but with a different approach. In nature, when animals can take care of their offspring, they sometimes kill or abandon the weakest one. You can see this with pandas, hamsters, and many others as even animals practice eugenics in their natural habitat.

Imagine that in your country everyone died but prisoners and criminals. What would your country be like?! What will the future hold as you know that 90% of their kids won't be better than them? Even if they were better, those people will raise them wrong, as generational trauma is a cycle that goes on forever and is only breakable by cutting the cursed genetic line. Trust me, I know that because I lived it.

You seriously should consider getting a real education so you can form actual arguments, because now you are just making assumptions based on random data where you mix facts, debunked pseudoscience with your own fantasy. And while doing that, you are totally ignoring even basic science behind genetics. Nor you are linking ANY sources, not even those sketchy ones.

This dunning kruger nonsense is so thick that i don't know where to start debunking it. The fact that you read some articles about this subject seemingly from sketchy sites and make assumptions based on.

So can flipping a coin. Is this really your best argument?

Can you agree that Japan is a good example of a successful nation and society?

One important point I forgot to mention is that Japan has had a history of eugenics dating back to around 500 BC. During that time, the Japanese established a caste system that ranked individuals based on the difficulty and nature of their work. At the top of this hierarchy were the emperor and ministers, followed by soldiers, inventors, farmers, and finally merchants.

Respect within this society was largely determined by the perceived difficulty of one's work. Soldiers, for instance, were required to perform both manual and intellectual tasks, whereas ministers primarily engaged in intellectual work.

However, there were those who were unable to perform either intellectual or manual labor, known as the "Burakumin." They were divided into two categories:
1-Those without intelligence but can do manual labor are mostly those who were butchers, grave diggers, body burners, cleaning animal waste, and those being called "impure" or "sub-humans" in modern eugenics.

2-Those without intelligence and can't deliver manual labor include thieves, scammers, beggars, and prostitutes, especially unattractive women who would never get married, and the only way to get by was through prostitution

The first category was permitted to work in cities and villages but was not allowed to live there, while the second category was completely barred from approaching these areas and neither group could marry non-Burakumin individuals, and they were forced to have tattoos and to mutilate one of their fingers to distinguish them from the rest of the Japanese population since they're japs ethnically.

For almost 2,400 years, the Burakumin lived in these oppressive conditions, resulting in a decline in their population due to disease, hunger, and weakness. They were largely absent from mainstream Japanese society.

Today, the Burakumin constitute less than 2% of the Japanese population, yet they represent nearly 75% of organized crime in Japan. Additionally, many scammers, beggars, and porn stars come from this community.

Can you imagine what Japan might have become if these individuals had not been isolated? What would have happened if they had made up 10% of the Japanese population?

Eugenics played a significant role in shaping Japan into a successful nation as it doesn't matter how many resources you have in your country, the most important resource is the human resource. If the bad quality of that source outnumbers the good quality, you'll end up in a shithole, even if you have all the resources in this world.

This can be exemplified by Japan, an island with few resources besides its people, and Zimbabwe, a country with many resources but lacking in human quality.

So if you ever have an anti-eugenics thought, remember this.

Nazi Germany built a cannon so heavy it needed its own rail road just to move and not cause an earthquake each time it fired. They fought the entire world for 10 years, and the kill/death ratio was in their favor, and I think this is enough proof of their success. Also, if you read the unbiased history, you will realize that Germany was attacked first and Hitler was seeking peace in the first days of the war, maybe not with Poland but surely with the UK and the Soviets.

The real evidence of success is really in our modern day, as Germany is one of the most successful nations because of that one single decade of using this ancient science.

The Huns and Mongolians fought to gain new lands as the tundra had nothing to offer, also to gain more females, and they had a very successful reign. The Mongolians killed 10% of humanity before they were finished, and they were finished because they were stupid. They had the strength but not the genius, and even Genghis Khan was semi-literate.

As for the Spartans compared to the rest of the Greeks, they were the most successful nation not only militarily but also in socioeconomics; no beggars and no crime because those are the doings of a weak or cowards individuals, and those were slaves who weren't allowed to have children.

So Mongolians and Spartans didn't leave any significant legacy because they didn't use eugenics, depending on high IQ but rather on strength, unlike Nazi Germany, which left a huge legacy in rocket and airplane engineering, chemistry, mechanical engineering and much more.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and 90% of the kids will be just like their fathers. So imagine if every criminal, stupid, and weak person were sterilized and only the smart and strong were left. What would your country look like in the future?



Actually this is true.
Eugenics isn't 100% effective, but still it can deliver at least 50% expected results.



You didn't hear of it because it's the most controversial issue to ever exist, and whenever you talk about it, people will start discussing the funniest joke in history, which is "Human Rights."

Mongolians are a poor and weak nation today because they stopped the natural sequences. Each Mongolian soldier had at least four women of different races. Whenever they conquered a city, they brought the women back to Mongolia as sex slaves, to the point that foreign females outnumbered Mongolian females. Believe it or not, but 0.5% of the humans on this earth have Genghis Khan's DNA. Not to mention, the rest of the Mongolians and modern-day Mongolians are not related to the ancient Mongolians at all, as they are a mixed population from every nation that has been conquered by them. They lost the superior DNA that was created over thousands of years through suffering and strength; that's why they are a pathetic nation today.

Although I had never heard of eugenics before. You were the first to hear and know about eugenics. Thanks OP for informing about the new topic.

After listening to your examples I think applying eugenics to any race would be negative. As you say Mongolia and Sparta practiced eugenics and they were successful in this practice. I think it's a downside for people with high IQs and strength as a result of its application. If you consider the current times, Mongolia is not doing very well at the moment. Being strong and having a high IQ naturally leads to jealousy and hatred, which is enough to divide a nation. Considering these issues, I think that eugenics should not be applied at all.

Control of eugenics doesn't work because the genetic crap-shoot has way more variables than can be taken into account.

Your examples are useful as proof that despite self-proclaimed efficiency of eugenics strategy to boost society to the next level, all the socities which adopted this concept still failed miserably. Sparta, Hun and Mongolian empires, Nazi Germany... They claimed superiority, tried to enslave neighboors and even the world, made the world fear their military skills and toughness, spread terror and chaos everywhere. That was the legacy they left.

We don't have a positive conception of them, because solely intelligence without mercy, love, compassion means nothing. The mechanical human being science tries to artificially build is doomed to failure.

Of course everyone is here to evolve and improve themselves as individuals, but it doesn't mean those who are on an upper level can eliminate or nuke the ones below. Theoretically, we are here to help each other towards evolution (in every aspects and spheres of our existence), and eugenics go completely on the opposite route.

Eugenics is an ancient science that has been practiced on humans since 500 BC; before that, it was and still is applied to animals and plants.

In a nutshell, eugenics means the sterilization of anyone who has an IQ of 80 or lower so that those individuals will not have children at all. This, in the future, will also save money on both the government side and the side of the people, as fewer people with low socioeconomic status means fewer incidents, fewer riots, and fewer demands on hospitals, schools, and policing, which will lead to lower taxes over the long run.

The most notable use of this science in our modern era was in 1933 Germany when Adolf Hitler ordered that any low IQ German citizen be sterilized. Also, any weak Germans would be sterilized as well, and these individuals were called "sub-humans" because they were not useful in the utopia Hitler dreamed of. Not to mention that industrialized sex as the government supported any high IQ, strong German in creating his family, And most of those ended up with 3-4 children which actually led to a huge success even in our modern day, as Germany is one of the most successful nations on earth, boasting a high IQ and strong populace.

In ancient times, eugenics was applied in several places, but the most notable example was Sparta. They would give newborn babies a wine bath, and those who cried would be designated as slaves with no human rights, as they would not be able to survive in the harsh society of Sparta. The Spartans were the strongest nation in Greece and had a very successful society based entirely on military strength.

Eugenics has also been applied naturally. If you read history, you will see how strong and resilient the Huns and Mongolians were. It was natural eugenics, as the harsh nature of the tundra meant that only those with a strong instinct could hunt and survive. Those without such instincts would die of hunger and therefore not pass on their genes and the old saying "Mongolians don't hit the same target twice" was accurate, as the only Mongolians who survived and passed on their lineage were the best hunters, Those skilled enough to strike a moving fox or rabbit with one arrow. Their prowess in hunting not only ensured their survival but the passing of their genetics.

This is why the Mongolian bow was stronger than an AK rifle (it weighed 68 kg and had a 500 m effective range). Only Mongolians were able to fire such a bow since they descended from the strongest. The same goes for Spartans as they were fighting and running with 70 kg of armor; no Greek could ever do that since the Spartans were the only ones to practice eugenics.
So to put it this way, every single time eugenics has been used, it has had a huge positive side in the long run, even if it is forced upon people naturally. So do you believe that eugenics should be applied and forced upon people or not?
Explain your view