lainchan archive - /cult/ - 4873
[ Return /
Go to bottom ]
File: 1480369895459.png (445.87 KB, 300x169, Pandora_Hearts__Alice_Vector_by_Kuromajinten.png)
We see many people on the net advocating 'population culling'. Now there are probably not many people like that on Lainchan, but if there are, it would be interesting to see their opinion.
My question to those people is, why are they always sure(or imply such) that if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses?(but please without narcissism)
For my second question let's say this hypothetical situation happens:
Their new government is established and one day they receive a letter with the following text:
'Dear sir John Smith
The results for your and your families inteligence/beauty/athleticism examination have come in and the results are: UNSATISFACTORY
However we are happy to inform you that our new and benevolent government has a new Human Error Correction internment camp programe.
Please stay at home tomorrow at 12:00 hours for the police to pick you up. Failure to comply with this order will result in an arrest order.
You have no right to appeal this decision.
Thank you.'
I wonder if such a hypothetical situation were to happen to advocates of such politics, would they stay true to their 'values' and be obedient or would they change their ways and rebel in such a hypothetical situation?
My question to those people is, why are they always sure(or imply such) that if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses?(but please without narcissism)
For my second question let's say this hypothetical situation happens:
Their new government is established and one day they receive a letter with the following text:
'Dear sir John Smith
The results for your and your families inteligence/beauty/athleticism examination have come in and the results are: UNSATISFACTORY
However we are happy to inform you that our new and benevolent government has a new Human Error Correction internment camp programe.
Please stay at home tomorrow at 12:00 hours for the police to pick you up. Failure to comply with this order will result in an arrest order.
You have no right to appeal this decision.
Thank you.'
I wonder if such a hypothetical situation were to happen to advocates of such politics, would they stay true to their 'values' and be obedient or would they change their ways and rebel in such a hypothetical situation?
Honestly, I think most people who call for culling people are trolls. Or people who feel like they would have been spared their suffering if they were killed off early.
I think this question is interesting though, but I'm not someone who likes the idea culling people for being "inferior". But my guess is that the more stupid advocates would accept their fate while the more intelligent or just plain egotistical ones (HOW DARE THEY IMPLY I'M UNWORTHY?!!!) would run away or possibly rebel but with the guilt of knowing they wanted this to happen.
I think this question is interesting though, but I'm not someone who likes the idea culling people for being "inferior". But my guess is that the more stupid advocates would accept their fate while the more intelligent or just plain egotistical ones (HOW DARE THEY IMPLY I'M UNWORTHY?!!!) would run away or possibly rebel but with the guilt of knowing they wanted this to happen.
dunno, but it always struck me as kind of funny when I got to know that Darwin was against Social Darwinism. Check out "On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties during Primeval and Civilised Times", if you don't believe.
Also fuarrrk people who think that same thing happens in nature, because this is way more complicated and soykaf
Also fuarrrk people who think that same thing happens in nature, because this is way more complicated and soykaf
File: 1480374278576.png (263.85 KB, 200x112, 129.png)
Hey man weak superfluous people ruin it for everyone, but why population cull (ignoring the many issues of logistics/ethics) when global capitalism is already going to pretty much guarantee it with future wars and global warming!
>>4873
One of the very good arguments I've read for eugenics came from Fredrick Brennan.
https://archive.is/jHdvJ
>Eugenics is a humanitarian idea, not a national socialist one.
>I am simply asking for compassion from an ignorant society that falsely believes it is unethical to give genetically defective people incentives not to reproduce. I am simply arguing for a world full of healthy, happy children who can play outside with their friends without breaking their legs.
Now to address your points rather than simply linking to an article.
>We see many people on the net advocating 'population culling'. Now there are probably not many people like that on Lainchan, but if there are, it would be interesting to see their opinion.
I'd be wary of believing that Lainchan is populated primarily by those like you and those you dislike are rare.
>My question to those people is, why are they always sure(or imply such) that if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses?(but please without narcissism)
I'm a very healthy and I believe rather intelligent individual. Most eugenics programs will start with the severely mentally and physically disabled and then after time become more strict.
Not every eugenics programs is going to immediately exterminate most of a population. Contrast this with a society that allows people with known, painful hereditary diseases to reproduce.
>I wonder if such a hypothetical situation were to happen to advocates of such politics, would they stay true to their 'values' and be obedient or would they change their ways and rebel in such a hypothetical situation?
My main ideal is keeping myself alive and similar goals. If this hypothetical government targeted me, I would probably flee.
Regardless, you don't consider why such a government would attack those in support of it. I could just as easily construct an argument vilifying a system like democracy. Follows is such a similarly asinine argument:
>You support democracy and now live in a democratic society. All important decisions are voted on.
>But, unfortunately for you, you're now required to vote on whether you should die or not!
>Would you still support a silly system like democracy after this or would you realize how silly it is?
One of the very good arguments I've read for eugenics came from Fredrick Brennan.
https://archive.is/jHdvJ
>Eugenics is a humanitarian idea, not a national socialist one.
>I am simply asking for compassion from an ignorant society that falsely believes it is unethical to give genetically defective people incentives not to reproduce. I am simply arguing for a world full of healthy, happy children who can play outside with their friends without breaking their legs.
Now to address your points rather than simply linking to an article.
>We see many people on the net advocating 'population culling'. Now there are probably not many people like that on Lainchan, but if there are, it would be interesting to see their opinion.
I'd be wary of believing that Lainchan is populated primarily by those like you and those you dislike are rare.
>My question to those people is, why are they always sure(or imply such) that if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses?(but please without narcissism)
I'm a very healthy and I believe rather intelligent individual. Most eugenics programs will start with the severely mentally and physically disabled and then after time become more strict.
Not every eugenics programs is going to immediately exterminate most of a population. Contrast this with a society that allows people with known, painful hereditary diseases to reproduce.
>I wonder if such a hypothetical situation were to happen to advocates of such politics, would they stay true to their 'values' and be obedient or would they change their ways and rebel in such a hypothetical situation?
My main ideal is keeping myself alive and similar goals. If this hypothetical government targeted me, I would probably flee.
Regardless, you don't consider why such a government would attack those in support of it. I could just as easily construct an argument vilifying a system like democracy. Follows is such a similarly asinine argument:
>You support democracy and now live in a democratic society. All important decisions are voted on.
>But, unfortunately for you, you're now required to vote on whether you should die or not!
>Would you still support a silly system like democracy after this or would you realize how silly it is?
tbh eugenics is an outdated idea. In 5-10 years it will be possible to reliably filter out harmful genotypes from all babies. The real question there is: is it okay to only have this implemented for a subset of the population?
I say no. The absolute worst thing you could do is to turn economic advantages into physical advantages. Not only would it exacerbate the class differences we have today, it would also reinforce our wealth-worshipping ideology: well, of course that man deserves his 11 mansions: he is, after all, objectively smarter than you, even if it's just because his rich parents paid for it.
So, yeah, we should do embryo filtering, but it's an all-or-nothing deal.
I say no. The absolute worst thing you could do is to turn economic advantages into physical advantages. Not only would it exacerbate the class differences we have today, it would also reinforce our wealth-worshipping ideology: well, of course that man deserves his 11 mansions: he is, after all, objectively smarter than you, even if it's just because his rich parents paid for it.
So, yeah, we should do embryo filtering, but it's an all-or-nothing deal.
File: 1480406267248.png (285.47 KB, 200x135, G5EkfnQ.png)
>>4877
>when global capitalism is already going to pretty much guarantee it with future wars and global warming
this is why we need posadism
nuke this soykaf, afterwards the aliens will bring us communism and we can finally harmonize with dolphins
>when global capitalism is already going to pretty much guarantee it with future wars and global warming
this is why we need posadism
nuke this soykaf, afterwards the aliens will bring us communism and we can finally harmonize with dolphins
>>4879
Honestly, my primary opposition to Eugenics and Systems that require population culling is for a very simple reason. You have to consider how a the system would be implemented and how could it be abused.
Your argument can seem silly at times, but that silly contrived case you gave for democracy is still a valid concern and criticism of the system. What happens when you leave critical decisions to direct public intervention?
Given such a system, the naturally foolish will do two things.
> Throw their bodyweight at passing and allowing inane or dangerous programs/acts.
> Do nothing when Inane or dangerous programs threaten themselves and/or society at large.
Now your example of a case may not apply in most situations, but it would most certainly remain valid. Such a vote does not have to directly affect you but may incidentally damn you to a lesser state of welfare and potentially expose you to near fatal situations.
This is why in the American court system, we have "checks and balances" and why in most legal proceedings, individuals are screened to ensure they won't allow a juror to be fully aware of a defendants guilty verdict and proceed to vote against sentencing anyhow.
Even though this makes the system more strict, rigid, and is lead into the hands of fewer people, it makes the biggest criticism of democracy (mob rule) less of an issue.
With a Eugenics Program you're throwing the power of life and death into the equation. Sure simple "breeding" programs could be established, but those with bad/inferior traits and even serious ones (like in the case of Fred Brennan) are considered fringe cases.
Taking only the most simple and basic approaches a Eugenics program would have to offer you will commonly deal with more common are cases where individuals will knowingly spread STI's through sexual contact and cases involving Mental Health.
The real problem stems not from the programs themselves (which are relatively simple and safe) but from their implementation.
Used in a system that heavily checks and balances this system it will be rendered near useless, as the system can be easily circumvented by it's own restriction and bureaucracy. The program will receive very few expansions due to its own bureaucratic nature and it will suffocate in it's sleep.
Used in a system that allows many leniency's, this establishes a dangerous precedent as individuals (especially in the mental health department) may be unintentionally or intentionally misdiagnosed and future expansions upon the program to extend to other individuals will come with relative ease.
The key, as in all things, is finding balance specifically in this implementation. Eugenics and Population culling are powerful tools with a high potential of misuse and may potentially backfire as a genetically homogenous culture can be more easily subjected to disease both natural and manufactured and inbreeding.
To society at large, this tool is far too powerful to be effectively implemented and is simply left to common sense. Screening of potential mates is left to the individual and even in cases where the outcome is undesirable, the parents in question are offered the ability to terminate the child early into the pregnancy.
Eugenics advocates are not without support however and can work on improving their powerbase by expanding the rights of an individual to perform an abortion in the event the child is severely handicapped. This "democratizes" the solution without subjecting the act to committee and while the bureaucratic nature of the program may be laborious to navigate, leaving the act to individual cases is a massive positive as it will cut down on the potential for abuse of the program without handicapping its effectiveness.
Honestly, my primary opposition to Eugenics and Systems that require population culling is for a very simple reason. You have to consider how a the system would be implemented and how could it be abused.
Your argument can seem silly at times, but that silly contrived case you gave for democracy is still a valid concern and criticism of the system. What happens when you leave critical decisions to direct public intervention?
Given such a system, the naturally foolish will do two things.
> Throw their bodyweight at passing and allowing inane or dangerous programs/acts.
> Do nothing when Inane or dangerous programs threaten themselves and/or society at large.
Now your example of a case may not apply in most situations, but it would most certainly remain valid. Such a vote does not have to directly affect you but may incidentally damn you to a lesser state of welfare and potentially expose you to near fatal situations.
This is why in the American court system, we have "checks and balances" and why in most legal proceedings, individuals are screened to ensure they won't allow a juror to be fully aware of a defendants guilty verdict and proceed to vote against sentencing anyhow.
Even though this makes the system more strict, rigid, and is lead into the hands of fewer people, it makes the biggest criticism of democracy (mob rule) less of an issue.
With a Eugenics Program you're throwing the power of life and death into the equation. Sure simple "breeding" programs could be established, but those with bad/inferior traits and even serious ones (like in the case of Fred Brennan) are considered fringe cases.
Taking only the most simple and basic approaches a Eugenics program would have to offer you will commonly deal with more common are cases where individuals will knowingly spread STI's through sexual contact and cases involving Mental Health.
The real problem stems not from the programs themselves (which are relatively simple and safe) but from their implementation.
Used in a system that heavily checks and balances this system it will be rendered near useless, as the system can be easily circumvented by it's own restriction and bureaucracy. The program will receive very few expansions due to its own bureaucratic nature and it will suffocate in it's sleep.
Used in a system that allows many leniency's, this establishes a dangerous precedent as individuals (especially in the mental health department) may be unintentionally or intentionally misdiagnosed and future expansions upon the program to extend to other individuals will come with relative ease.
The key, as in all things, is finding balance specifically in this implementation. Eugenics and Population culling are powerful tools with a high potential of misuse and may potentially backfire as a genetically homogenous culture can be more easily subjected to disease both natural and manufactured and inbreeding.
To society at large, this tool is far too powerful to be effectively implemented and is simply left to common sense. Screening of potential mates is left to the individual and even in cases where the outcome is undesirable, the parents in question are offered the ability to terminate the child early into the pregnancy.
Eugenics advocates are not without support however and can work on improving their powerbase by expanding the rights of an individual to perform an abortion in the event the child is severely handicapped. This "democratizes" the solution without subjecting the act to committee and while the bureaucratic nature of the program may be laborious to navigate, leaving the act to individual cases is a massive positive as it will cut down on the potential for abuse of the program without handicapping its effectiveness.
>>4896
I just realized how muddled the whole thing sounds so Im just gonna try and keep it simple.
Eugenics isn't bad the implementation most people have in minds for it however are pure soykaf. Leaving the chance of life/death in the hands of other human beings is a terrifying prospect, even leaving breeding rights to anothers whims is dangerous as an individual or group of individuals can intentionally or accidentally generate a false verdict or implement faulty policy. It is mistrusted more so than even the idea of the death penalty as the death penalty is heavily restricted by bureaucratic tape and effects a class of individuals society at large considers deconstructive.
Regardless of whether someone advocates for Eugenics or not, implementation makes up 90% of a policy. For example, while the idea of a Eugenics Program in society as a whole comes off as shocking and terrifying, programs such as planned parenthood which allow and support individuals looking have an abortion are considered my mainstream society to be largely beneficial.
The best way to implement a "Eugenics Policy" is not to have a "Policy" to begin with. Simply do not incentivize breeding or large households and expand abortion programs whilst simultaneously providing free support and sexual education to the masses to ensure incidents of breeding are separated as much as possible from acts of sexual indulgence.
I just realized how muddled the whole thing sounds so Im just gonna try and keep it simple.
Eugenics isn't bad the implementation most people have in minds for it however are pure soykaf. Leaving the chance of life/death in the hands of other human beings is a terrifying prospect, even leaving breeding rights to anothers whims is dangerous as an individual or group of individuals can intentionally or accidentally generate a false verdict or implement faulty policy. It is mistrusted more so than even the idea of the death penalty as the death penalty is heavily restricted by bureaucratic tape and effects a class of individuals society at large considers deconstructive.
Regardless of whether someone advocates for Eugenics or not, implementation makes up 90% of a policy. For example, while the idea of a Eugenics Program in society as a whole comes off as shocking and terrifying, programs such as planned parenthood which allow and support individuals looking have an abortion are considered my mainstream society to be largely beneficial.
The best way to implement a "Eugenics Policy" is not to have a "Policy" to begin with. Simply do not incentivize breeding or large households and expand abortion programs whilst simultaneously providing free support and sexual education to the masses to ensure incidents of breeding are separated as much as possible from acts of sexual indulgence.
>>4897
>For example, while the idea of a Eugenics Program in society as a whole comes off as shocking and terrifying, programs such as planned parenthood which allow and support individuals looking have an abortion are considered my mainstream society to be largely beneficial.
I don't want to bring politics into this, but much of society is looking to effectively destroy Planned Parenthood and will probably succeed.
I support abortion only because it's the one form of rough eugenics my society has.
>The best way to implement a "Eugenics Policy" is not to have a "Policy" to begin with.
It works very well in Singapore to have a real policy.
>Simply do not incentivize breeding or large households and expand abortion programs
Part of a eugenics program is increasing the ratio of desirables to undesirables, which this wouldn't do well. The intelligent in a society are much more likely to not reproduce at all in such a system, whereas the undesirable would still do so.
>whilst simultaneously providing free support and sexual education to the masses to ensure incidents of breeding are separated as much as possible from acts of sexual indulgence.
This still does nothing to stop undesirable people from breeding.
Your system would effectively sway many of the intelligent, while having largely no effect on the unintelligent.
I point to Singapore as an effective eugenics system, namely in that it pays people deemed undesirable and without children to have themselves sterilized. Everyone wins.
>For example, while the idea of a Eugenics Program in society as a whole comes off as shocking and terrifying, programs such as planned parenthood which allow and support individuals looking have an abortion are considered my mainstream society to be largely beneficial.
I don't want to bring politics into this, but much of society is looking to effectively destroy Planned Parenthood and will probably succeed.
I support abortion only because it's the one form of rough eugenics my society has.
>The best way to implement a "Eugenics Policy" is not to have a "Policy" to begin with.
It works very well in Singapore to have a real policy.
>Simply do not incentivize breeding or large households and expand abortion programs
Part of a eugenics program is increasing the ratio of desirables to undesirables, which this wouldn't do well. The intelligent in a society are much more likely to not reproduce at all in such a system, whereas the undesirable would still do so.
>whilst simultaneously providing free support and sexual education to the masses to ensure incidents of breeding are separated as much as possible from acts of sexual indulgence.
This still does nothing to stop undesirable people from breeding.
Your system would effectively sway many of the intelligent, while having largely no effect on the unintelligent.
I point to Singapore as an effective eugenics system, namely in that it pays people deemed undesirable and without children to have themselves sterilized. Everyone wins.
File: 1480414507951.png (14.84 KB, 140x200, One_Two_and_That's_Ideal_.jpg)
>>4898
This. Singapore is a great example of what all of society could be like if we just enforced technocratic bureaucracy on everyone with draconian punishment and no regard for the false concept of "human" "rights".
Just look at this poster. Doesn't it make you feel better to know that someone knows the ideal family size and has communicated that to you?
Really, the Singaporese policies don't go far enough, IMO. Removing tax breaks is frankly crap, it just means the rich get to reproduce (which is not necessarily good: do you want happy merchants to overrun your homeland?). The educational de-prioritization Singapore does is better, because it hurts the child instead of the parent. The policy would be much more effective if any children after the second were just raised in prison camps and waterboarded or maybe caned (Singapore has a lot of institutional expertise in caning, so I imagine this would go better) until they eventually die of overwork. You could force their parents to go about their normal lives while receiving video updates of their children. This would really limit breeding. The only downside I can think of is that to make sure that people watch the videos, you have to install proprietary software on their computer.
This. Singapore is a great example of what all of society could be like if we just enforced technocratic bureaucracy on everyone with draconian punishment and no regard for the false concept of "human" "rights".
Just look at this poster. Doesn't it make you feel better to know that someone knows the ideal family size and has communicated that to you?
Really, the Singaporese policies don't go far enough, IMO. Removing tax breaks is frankly crap, it just means the rich get to reproduce (which is not necessarily good: do you want happy merchants to overrun your homeland?). The educational de-prioritization Singapore does is better, because it hurts the child instead of the parent. The policy would be much more effective if any children after the second were just raised in prison camps and waterboarded or maybe caned (Singapore has a lot of institutional expertise in caning, so I imagine this would go better) until they eventually die of overwork. You could force their parents to go about their normal lives while receiving video updates of their children. This would really limit breeding. The only downside I can think of is that to make sure that people watch the videos, you have to install proprietary software on their computer.
File: 1480446902471.png (69.09 KB, 200x151, eldery.jpg)
File: 1480515318247.png (666.49 KB, 200x200, OaM6m2Nx-glitched-10-19-2016-6-15-23-AM.png)
>>4901
>It would never work on a larger society.
Especially one that wasn't under such a regime. It would take mass despotism and police force to keep people from rebelling or rioting.
However, I think it would come out slowly. Everyone remembers Watergate and opposes it, but when you mention The Patriot Act or Nine Eyes, people act like you're a nutty conspiracy theorist.
>It would never work on a larger society.
Especially one that wasn't under such a regime. It would take mass despotism and police force to keep people from rebelling or rioting.
However, I think it would come out slowly. Everyone remembers Watergate and opposes it, but when you mention The Patriot Act or Nine Eyes, people act like you're a nutty conspiracy theorist.
>>4873
I've never seen anyone calling for culling, racial purity, the lack of diversity, or the ubermensch ideal who I actually thought was a good enough physical or mental specimen to be justifiably saved in a culling type of situation.
My two cents about eugenics is that in a worker based society the elite/well educated/well raised will always needs at least 2 to 5 non elites working under him in order to succeed, so if your worldview is that certain people are inherently superior, those superior people will need inferior people to be under them.
Also as far as population control goes I'd say we need to institute a carbon tax on children. Instead of giving people money and tax cuts for having more children we need to give them higher taxes for being a burden on the climate. Also make abortions and contraception free and readily available.
I've never seen anyone calling for culling, racial purity, the lack of diversity, or the ubermensch ideal who I actually thought was a good enough physical or mental specimen to be justifiably saved in a culling type of situation.
My two cents about eugenics is that in a worker based society the elite/well educated/well raised will always needs at least 2 to 5 non elites working under him in order to succeed, so if your worldview is that certain people are inherently superior, those superior people will need inferior people to be under them.
Also as far as population control goes I'd say we need to institute a carbon tax on children. Instead of giving people money and tax cuts for having more children we need to give them higher taxes for being a burden on the climate. Also make abortions and contraception free and readily available.
File: 1480589611500.png (54.12 KB, 106x200, a157f75ee4081a165cfadfe473b550d5.jpg)
When society has reached the point where it puts itself before millions of lives we would be better off without it. Society serves society more than it serves the individual, in fact collectivism as a whole is just a plot to undermine the individual and make us one unit to control, mislead and even kill. Man should serve himself because systems shall serve systems which is generally not good for mankind. But who am I to draw the line? You think what you want to think.
>>4963
just in case you are literally autistic (I feel for you, I am probably assburgers myself), here is how you can tell it's sarcastic:
>Singapore is a great example of what all of society could be like if we just enforced technocratic bureaucracy on everyone with draconian punishment and no regard for the false concept of "human" "rights".
Read simply, this sentence is praising Singapore, but doing so while simultaneously using several negative-connotation phrases like "technocratic bureaucracy" and "draconian punishment." The scare quotes around "human" and "rights" are thrown in to parody chan-tier fascists, who do similar things.
>Just look at this poster. Doesn't it make you feel better to know that someone knows the ideal family size and has communicated that to you?
I really thought this would be a dead giveaway. This sentence is condescending to the eugenicist.
>do you want happy merchants to overrun your homeland
I had also hoped this would be a dead giveaway but I guess Poe's law has progressed too far on lainchan. Pro tip: lainchan is a lot better if you assume anyone reichposting is just trolling the fash.
>maybe caned (Singapore has a lot of institutional expertise in caning, so I imagine this would go better)
Here, I take an absurd/extreme proposal and qualify it with a hint of realism. How would it "go better" if the prison camps used caning instead of waterboarding? Torture is torture and it doesn't really matter how you do it.
>The only downside I can think of is that to make sure that people watch the videos, you have to install proprietary software on their computer.
Here, I parody the lainchan fascist. It's absurd to want to forcibly sterilize people and also care about proprietary software. But since avoidance of proprietary software is a core value of lainchan, presumably a eugenicist/fascist on lainchan would also share this value. Juxtaposing the care for one's right to control one's own computer with the oppression of a eugenicist state makes it clear that eugenics have no place in cyberpunk, and so eugenicists have no place on lainchan.
hope this helps. you might want to study literature interpretation, it will make you better at this and it's very fun.
just in case you are literally autistic (I feel for you, I am probably assburgers myself), here is how you can tell it's sarcastic:
>Singapore is a great example of what all of society could be like if we just enforced technocratic bureaucracy on everyone with draconian punishment and no regard for the false concept of "human" "rights".
Read simply, this sentence is praising Singapore, but doing so while simultaneously using several negative-connotation phrases like "technocratic bureaucracy" and "draconian punishment." The scare quotes around "human" and "rights" are thrown in to parody chan-tier fascists, who do similar things.
>Just look at this poster. Doesn't it make you feel better to know that someone knows the ideal family size and has communicated that to you?
I really thought this would be a dead giveaway. This sentence is condescending to the eugenicist.
>do you want happy merchants to overrun your homeland
I had also hoped this would be a dead giveaway but I guess Poe's law has progressed too far on lainchan. Pro tip: lainchan is a lot better if you assume anyone reichposting is just trolling the fash.
>maybe caned (Singapore has a lot of institutional expertise in caning, so I imagine this would go better)
Here, I take an absurd/extreme proposal and qualify it with a hint of realism. How would it "go better" if the prison camps used caning instead of waterboarding? Torture is torture and it doesn't really matter how you do it.
>The only downside I can think of is that to make sure that people watch the videos, you have to install proprietary software on their computer.
Here, I parody the lainchan fascist. It's absurd to want to forcibly sterilize people and also care about proprietary software. But since avoidance of proprietary software is a core value of lainchan, presumably a eugenicist/fascist on lainchan would also share this value. Juxtaposing the care for one's right to control one's own computer with the oppression of a eugenicist state makes it clear that eugenics have no place in cyberpunk, and so eugenicists have no place on lainchan.
hope this helps. you might want to study literature interpretation, it will make you better at this and it's very fun.
Population culling can happen with just sterilization, no deathcamps needed.
>My question to those people is, why are they always sure(or imply such) that if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses?(but please without narcissism)
The problem with that whole question is that you assume that the people calling for eugenics don't have any criteria in mind they just want death. Most people who advocate for anything usually understand what will happen if they get their way.
>
The results for your and your families inteligence/beauty/athleticism examination have come in and the results are: UNSATISFACTORY
Personally I only advocate for sterilization. I also fit my own criteria for UNSATISFACTORY and i wouldn't be surprised or bothered if it happened.
Try to understand that myself and many other people don't take this position out of a feeling of superiority but instead to minimize suffering and therefore burden on society. You should be able to prevent someone from attempting to have a kid if you know that the child will get some horrible genetic disease that will disable them or kill them while they're young. I also don't see having a child in less than ideal conditions as any different. Everybody feels sorry for the starving diseased children in africa but no one questions their parents decision to have them. The parents of those kids are not ignorant of the world around them and they know that they probably would not have enough resources to even feed children if they had them. No one ever holds them accountable for what happens to their offspring. One of possibly the best ways to prevent inter generational poverty is to stop the poor from having kids who will only end up like their parents. I'm also not necessarily advocating for just sterilizing the poor, means testing before people are allowed to reproduce makes a lot of sense.
>My question to those people is, why are they always sure(or imply such) that if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses?(but please without narcissism)
The problem with that whole question is that you assume that the people calling for eugenics don't have any criteria in mind they just want death. Most people who advocate for anything usually understand what will happen if they get their way.
>
The results for your and your families inteligence/beauty/athleticism examination have come in and the results are: UNSATISFACTORY
Personally I only advocate for sterilization. I also fit my own criteria for UNSATISFACTORY and i wouldn't be surprised or bothered if it happened.
Try to understand that myself and many other people don't take this position out of a feeling of superiority but instead to minimize suffering and therefore burden on society. You should be able to prevent someone from attempting to have a kid if you know that the child will get some horrible genetic disease that will disable them or kill them while they're young. I also don't see having a child in less than ideal conditions as any different. Everybody feels sorry for the starving diseased children in africa but no one questions their parents decision to have them. The parents of those kids are not ignorant of the world around them and they know that they probably would not have enough resources to even feed children if they had them. No one ever holds them accountable for what happens to their offspring. One of possibly the best ways to prevent inter generational poverty is to stop the poor from having kids who will only end up like their parents. I'm also not necessarily advocating for just sterilizing the poor, means testing before people are allowed to reproduce makes a lot of sense.
>>4894
I feel like this would still create issues, because you'd have older generations of people who weren't genetically modified, but are still alive to compete with them, and you'd have people with different ideas on what genes should be culled.
How do you reliably define harmful genotypes when illness is culturally relative?
I feel like this would still create issues, because you'd have older generations of people who weren't genetically modified, but are still alive to compete with them, and you'd have people with different ideas on what genes should be culled.
How do you reliably define harmful genotypes when illness is culturally relative?
File: 1482321471435.png (303.7 KB, 200x188, 1450703521478-pol.png)
I am above average in all measurable qualities.
Any sensible Eugenics program aims at dealing with the absolute worst the population has to offer, a percent of a percent each generation, destroying biodiversity within the population unnecessarily is dysgenic. Slow and steady wins the race.
Your hypothetical situation is a straw man.
If I had a serious genetic disease, I would have some semen frozen and get myself a vasectomy. No need for the government to even get involved, I would not like to bring a defective child to this world, life is hard enough as it is. Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, namely Preimplantation Genetic Testing, I should still be able to have healthy children, and even in the few cases that is not possible, it's just a matter of having a close relative without the bad genes donate his, adopting or going without. Just because you are not allowed or able to reproduce does not mean you can't lead a fulfilling life or be a productive member of society.
A different matter is dealing with the criminally insane, mass murderers, pedophiles and such. Forced euthanasia has my full support in such cases.
Any sensible Eugenics program aims at dealing with the absolute worst the population has to offer, a percent of a percent each generation, destroying biodiversity within the population unnecessarily is dysgenic. Slow and steady wins the race.
Your hypothetical situation is a straw man.
If I had a serious genetic disease, I would have some semen frozen and get myself a vasectomy. No need for the government to even get involved, I would not like to bring a defective child to this world, life is hard enough as it is. Thanks to the wonders of modern medicine, namely Preimplantation Genetic Testing, I should still be able to have healthy children, and even in the few cases that is not possible, it's just a matter of having a close relative without the bad genes donate his, adopting or going without. Just because you are not allowed or able to reproduce does not mean you can't lead a fulfilling life or be a productive member of society.
A different matter is dealing with the criminally insane, mass murderers, pedophiles and such. Forced euthanasia has my full support in such cases.
>>4873
>>why are they always sure(or imply such) that if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses
Personally I don't try to imply that. I'm just willing to be in the death camps if it means a brighter future for those who survive to be born in the future
Though I might be a minority, since I generally am a pessimist and believe that existence in general is a negative to be corrected through any means necessary, advancing humanity into humanity 2.0 is only a partial solution
>>why are they always sure(or imply such) that if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses
Personally I don't try to imply that. I'm just willing to be in the death camps if it means a brighter future for those who survive to be born in the future
Though I might be a minority, since I generally am a pessimist and believe that existence in general is a negative to be corrected through any means necessary, advancing humanity into humanity 2.0 is only a partial solution
>>4954
Individualism is patently retarded.
What the fuarrrk would you be without society?
A fuarrrking animal scavenging for scraps of food with no language, or tools.
Not to mention you'd actually just be dead without your parents or someone else there to raise you babies are completely helpless.
Even if you assume biological egoism, then you admit people do things for other people in their own interest so why construct systems which directly oppose.out very nature?
Individualism is patently retarded.
What the fuarrrk would you be without society?
A fuarrrking animal scavenging for scraps of food with no language, or tools.
Not to mention you'd actually just be dead without your parents or someone else there to raise you babies are completely helpless.
Even if you assume biological egoism, then you admit people do things for other people in their own interest so why construct systems which directly oppose.out very nature?
File: 1487547389884.png (143.06 KB, 192x200, the-weak-should-fear-the-strong-2013-at-4-07am-via-2899344.png)
>>6548
What is society without the individual ? Jackass.
>>4873
I hate this thread, most people have something that they can offer society. Frederick Brennan for example created 8chan, and as dubious as that accomplishment is, he did something, the poor and the uninteligent have proven good at manual labour, and potentially good as craftspeople. I think everyone has value, even if it's only as fertilizer
The thing that terrifies me the most about the lains in this thread is that some of them would trust the government to make arbitrary decisions on who gets to live and who gets to die. Think about how useless the beurocrat class in whatever country you live in is, they'd all get to live. All the yuppies in sillicon valley making useless javascript frameworks would get their tickets punched.
Even if you'd like to do it in a 'data driven' way we'd all be fuarrrking dead, you realize that the government would see a bunch of grown men lurking on a board dedicated to a little anime girl, and they'd label us all as pederasts, data never generates a complete picture.
As for OP don't worry the degenerates and the deviants tend to sterilize themselves. And it's pretty tough for a lot of people with serious disabilities to get laid. It's not like a bunch of people with missing chromosomes are all fuarrrking right now.
What is society without the individual ? Jackass.
>>4873
I hate this thread, most people have something that they can offer society. Frederick Brennan for example created 8chan, and as dubious as that accomplishment is, he did something, the poor and the uninteligent have proven good at manual labour, and potentially good as craftspeople. I think everyone has value, even if it's only as fertilizer
The thing that terrifies me the most about the lains in this thread is that some of them would trust the government to make arbitrary decisions on who gets to live and who gets to die. Think about how useless the beurocrat class in whatever country you live in is, they'd all get to live. All the yuppies in sillicon valley making useless javascript frameworks would get their tickets punched.
Even if you'd like to do it in a 'data driven' way we'd all be fuarrrking dead, you realize that the government would see a bunch of grown men lurking on a board dedicated to a little anime girl, and they'd label us all as pederasts, data never generates a complete picture.
As for OP don't worry the degenerates and the deviants tend to sterilize themselves. And it's pretty tough for a lot of people with serious disabilities to get laid. It's not like a bunch of people with missing chromosomes are all fuarrrking right now.
>>6548
>He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.
- Aristotle
I like to believe I'd be a god.
>>6550
>I hate this thread, most people have something that they can offer society. Frederick Brennan for example created 8chan
Frederick Brennan wrote an excellent argument for all of this.
Here's an earlier post of mine, which links to it: >>4879
>The thing that terrifies me the most about the lains in this thread is that some of them would trust the government to make arbitrary decisions on who gets to live and who gets to die. Think about how useless the beurocrat class in whatever country you live in is, they'd all get to live. All the yuppies in sillicon valley making useless javascript frameworks would get their tickets punched.
I largely support the Singaporean system, which is entirely voluntary.
I trust the government to do very little correctly. Regardless, I do believe governmental power should be centralized.
>data never generates a complete picture.
This isn't related to the discussion much, but that would mean that the data is insufficient, not somehow incapable.
>He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.
- Aristotle
I like to believe I'd be a god.
>>6550
>I hate this thread, most people have something that they can offer society. Frederick Brennan for example created 8chan
Frederick Brennan wrote an excellent argument for all of this.
Here's an earlier post of mine, which links to it: >>4879
>The thing that terrifies me the most about the lains in this thread is that some of them would trust the government to make arbitrary decisions on who gets to live and who gets to die. Think about how useless the beurocrat class in whatever country you live in is, they'd all get to live. All the yuppies in sillicon valley making useless javascript frameworks would get their tickets punched.
I largely support the Singaporean system, which is entirely voluntary.
I trust the government to do very little correctly. Regardless, I do believe governmental power should be centralized.
>data never generates a complete picture.
This isn't related to the discussion much, but that would mean that the data is insufficient, not somehow incapable.
Daily Reminder
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1689/1689-h/1689-h.htm#link2HCH0008
We could have had Eugenics if it hadn't been knocked out of vogue by Hitler
See chapter VIII/8
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1689/1689-h/1689-h.htm#link2HCH0008
We could have had Eugenics if it hadn't been knocked out of vogue by Hitler
See chapter VIII/8
>>6561
> Frederick Brennan wrote an excellent argument for all of this.
I was talking about your argument, I don't think eugenics is ever compassionate especially in a society as advanced as ours, within our lifetimes we could see a cure for most diseases, possibly a cure for death, or a cure for retardation. At one time eugenics 'may' have been compassionate. But right now I think at best a desire for eugenics is misguided at worst it's just a racist pipe dream. It's great if you want to exterminate the blacks and the mexicans I guess.
> I trust the government to do very little correctly. Regardless, I do believe governmental power should be centralized.
this seems like a little bit of an oxymoron to me... I mean if you don't trust the government to do anything correctly why would it work better if it were centralized, you'd have something like the EU regulating the size of a toothpaste tube.
>This isn't related to the discussion much, but that would mean that the data is insufficient, not somehow incapable.
The data is always going to be insufficient, no such thing as complete data, so it's always incapable. A data driven approach for example has actually created fewer new drugs than an almost random approach. You can find the same trend in the stock market, where a random stock picker can almost out-trade a standard HFT algorithm.
> Frederick Brennan wrote an excellent argument for all of this.
I was talking about your argument, I don't think eugenics is ever compassionate especially in a society as advanced as ours, within our lifetimes we could see a cure for most diseases, possibly a cure for death, or a cure for retardation. At one time eugenics 'may' have been compassionate. But right now I think at best a desire for eugenics is misguided at worst it's just a racist pipe dream. It's great if you want to exterminate the blacks and the mexicans I guess.
> I trust the government to do very little correctly. Regardless, I do believe governmental power should be centralized.
this seems like a little bit of an oxymoron to me... I mean if you don't trust the government to do anything correctly why would it work better if it were centralized, you'd have something like the EU regulating the size of a toothpaste tube.
>This isn't related to the discussion much, but that would mean that the data is insufficient, not somehow incapable.
The data is always going to be insufficient, no such thing as complete data, so it's always incapable. A data driven approach for example has actually created fewer new drugs than an almost random approach. You can find the same trend in the stock market, where a random stock picker can almost out-trade a standard HFT algorithm.
>>6564
>this seems like a little bit of an oxymoron to me... I mean if you don't trust the government to do anything correctly why would it work better if it were centralized, you'd have something like the EU regulating the size of a toothpaste tube.
Centralized = in one location
vs. having every state/county with its own little bylaws micromanaging peoples' lives
While decentralization can lead to less restriction (e.g., if I want to live in a dystopian hellhole with food/drug regulations, I can just inflict it on my own state+neighbors without bringing everyone down); centralization and BIG are not necessarily/intrinsically related.
>this seems like a little bit of an oxymoron to me... I mean if you don't trust the government to do anything correctly why would it work better if it were centralized, you'd have something like the EU regulating the size of a toothpaste tube.
Centralized = in one location
vs. having every state/county with its own little bylaws micromanaging peoples' lives
While decentralization can lead to less restriction (e.g., if I want to live in a dystopian hellhole with food/drug regulations, I can just inflict it on my own state+neighbors without bringing everyone down); centralization and BIG are not necessarily/intrinsically related.
>>6565
How could you argue that centralization and BIG are not intrinsically related, could you provide an example from history? Even going so far back as Rome, without exception in history central governments have always been unwieldly, a government that got to decide who lived and who died would be extra large. In places where euthenasia is legal (Belgium, Canada, Holland etc), they have to create a ton of government cruft on top of already inefficient health care systems to deal with it, can you imagine how bad it would be if it were enforced on a grand scale?
When you have a giant central government you've got to create sollutions that work for everyone, and that's patently impossible. Think about it. Maybe limiting the population works in Singapore, one of the most densely populated countries on earth, but would it be necessary in a country like Russia?
Often when the government tampers with a population the result is crisis, the one child policy in China for example has led to a decrease in growth in China and therefore, big trouble in the middle kingdom. Singapore is going through a similar crisis btw, they have to convince people to fuarrrk there now.
There's a reason eugenics isn't discussed as a viable option anymore, in the past it has proven deficient. And nature has ways of dealing with over population (starvation, disease, ecological disaster).
How could you argue that centralization and BIG are not intrinsically related, could you provide an example from history? Even going so far back as Rome, without exception in history central governments have always been unwieldly, a government that got to decide who lived and who died would be extra large. In places where euthenasia is legal (Belgium, Canada, Holland etc), they have to create a ton of government cruft on top of already inefficient health care systems to deal with it, can you imagine how bad it would be if it were enforced on a grand scale?
When you have a giant central government you've got to create sollutions that work for everyone, and that's patently impossible. Think about it. Maybe limiting the population works in Singapore, one of the most densely populated countries on earth, but would it be necessary in a country like Russia?
Often when the government tampers with a population the result is crisis, the one child policy in China for example has led to a decrease in growth in China and therefore, big trouble in the middle kingdom. Singapore is going through a similar crisis btw, they have to convince people to fuarrrk there now.
There's a reason eugenics isn't discussed as a viable option anymore, in the past it has proven deficient. And nature has ways of dealing with over population (starvation, disease, ecological disaster).
>>6564
>But right now I think at best a desire for eugenics is misguided at worst it's just a racist pipe dream. It's great if you want to exterminate the blacks and the mexicans I guess.
We just disagree, I suppose.
Besides, I look at all of the horribly deformed people that have been kept alive in suffering with the medical technology we currently have and I know they would be better off dead.
>this seems like a little bit of an oxymoron to me... I mean if you don't trust the government to do anything correctly why would it work better if it were centralized, you'd have something like the EU regulating the size of a toothpaste tube.
I trust my government to do little correctly. When speaking of governmental power, not governments, I believe it should be centralized; I believe this is a better governmental structure.
>The data is always going to be insufficient, no such thing as complete data, so it's always incapable. A data driven approach for example has actually created fewer new drugs than an almost random approach. You can find the same trend in the stock market, where a random stock picker can almost out-trade a standard HFT algorithm.
I'm reminded of the Library of Babel, I believe it's called.
I simply argue that data can completely describe phenomena, if the data is sufficient. These failings aren't related much to my thinking, I don't believe.
>>6565
You're not me, just to clarify.
>While decentralization can lead to less restriction (e.g., if I want to live in a dystopian hellhole with food/drug regulations, I can just inflict it on my own state+neighbors without bringing everyone down); centralization and BIG are not necessarily/intrinsically related.
I agree.
>>6567
>How could you argue that centralization and BIG are not intrinsically related, could you provide an example from history? Even going so far back as Rome, without exception in history central governments have always been unwieldly, a government that got to decide who lived and who died would be extra large. In places where euthenasia is legal (Belgium, Canada, Holland etc), they have to create a ton of government cruft on top of already inefficient health care systems to deal with it, can you imagine how bad it would be if it were enforced on a grand scale?
While this seems a disconnected analogy, think of a government as an interpreter program. It starts off probably monolithic and then loads new programs into itself.
The government would be worse off as many, many smaller governments, just as the program would with programs.
>When you have a giant central government you've got to create sollutions that work for everyone, and that's patently impossible.
That's not true. Plenty of governments don't "work" for all of their citizens. You should elaborate on what you mean by this.
>Often when the government tampers with a population the result is crisis, the one child policy in China for example has led to a decrease in growth in China and therefore, big trouble in the middle kingdom. Singapore is going through a similar crisis btw, they have to convince people to fuarrrk there now.
If you observe the past, the Chinese government has a good history of bad decisions. I don't believe any government structure will help them much.
>But right now I think at best a desire for eugenics is misguided at worst it's just a racist pipe dream. It's great if you want to exterminate the blacks and the mexicans I guess.
We just disagree, I suppose.
Besides, I look at all of the horribly deformed people that have been kept alive in suffering with the medical technology we currently have and I know they would be better off dead.
>this seems like a little bit of an oxymoron to me... I mean if you don't trust the government to do anything correctly why would it work better if it were centralized, you'd have something like the EU regulating the size of a toothpaste tube.
I trust my government to do little correctly. When speaking of governmental power, not governments, I believe it should be centralized; I believe this is a better governmental structure.
>The data is always going to be insufficient, no such thing as complete data, so it's always incapable. A data driven approach for example has actually created fewer new drugs than an almost random approach. You can find the same trend in the stock market, where a random stock picker can almost out-trade a standard HFT algorithm.
I'm reminded of the Library of Babel, I believe it's called.
I simply argue that data can completely describe phenomena, if the data is sufficient. These failings aren't related much to my thinking, I don't believe.
>>6565
You're not me, just to clarify.
>While decentralization can lead to less restriction (e.g., if I want to live in a dystopian hellhole with food/drug regulations, I can just inflict it on my own state+neighbors without bringing everyone down); centralization and BIG are not necessarily/intrinsically related.
I agree.
>>6567
>How could you argue that centralization and BIG are not intrinsically related, could you provide an example from history? Even going so far back as Rome, without exception in history central governments have always been unwieldly, a government that got to decide who lived and who died would be extra large. In places where euthenasia is legal (Belgium, Canada, Holland etc), they have to create a ton of government cruft on top of already inefficient health care systems to deal with it, can you imagine how bad it would be if it were enforced on a grand scale?
While this seems a disconnected analogy, think of a government as an interpreter program. It starts off probably monolithic and then loads new programs into itself.
The government would be worse off as many, many smaller governments, just as the program would with programs.
>When you have a giant central government you've got to create sollutions that work for everyone, and that's patently impossible.
That's not true. Plenty of governments don't "work" for all of their citizens. You should elaborate on what you mean by this.
>Often when the government tampers with a population the result is crisis, the one child policy in China for example has led to a decrease in growth in China and therefore, big trouble in the middle kingdom. Singapore is going through a similar crisis btw, they have to convince people to fuarrrk there now.
If you observe the past, the Chinese government has a good history of bad decisions. I don't believe any government structure will help them much.
I admit I haven't but much thought into this idea, but it occurred to me while reading this thread, so here it is:
What if, instead of preventing people from breeding, there were government incentives that encouraged not having children? In other words, if you were selected by a eugenics program as "undesirable," you received a tax cut or a bi-annual stipend or something similar. It would almost be like the opposite of receiving more welfare for having more children. I'm not sure what would stop someone from participating in this program for five years and then having children, but I also haven't thought too deeply about this.
I don't necessarily support this idea, but I thought it might be an interesting alternative to eugenics for the sake of this thread.
What if, instead of preventing people from breeding, there were government incentives that encouraged not having children? In other words, if you were selected by a eugenics program as "undesirable," you received a tax cut or a bi-annual stipend or something similar. It would almost be like the opposite of receiving more welfare for having more children. I'm not sure what would stop someone from participating in this program for five years and then having children, but I also haven't thought too deeply about this.
I don't necessarily support this idea, but I thought it might be an interesting alternative to eugenics for the sake of this thread.
>if their political opinions win, that they would be among the selected elite and not among the tortured masses?
I think it'd be hard to be sure of that, given that genetic mutations are to an important extent random. Cancer is basically a product of cells' genetic misbehavior and it's the second more common cause of death in the US. Also we all have mutations that don't show up and recessive genes that we know nothing about. Perhaps the only way to be sure that you're not going to be regulated by those measures is being a regulator yourself. That might be the answer to your second question. Just another reason to have married Billy Gates before he was rich (was he ever not rich)
>>4874
>Honestly, I think most people who call for culling people are trolls.
I don't think so, as the issue has been brought up as a good thing in movies and such. Pieces like the movie Gattaca (or whatever its name was) made some people think that having "good genes" is what happens when you're tall, get good grades and do sports (Also the brother of the main guy in that movie was visibly taken from Nazi propaganda posters, wtf). But I know trolls are hard to tell from misinformed people.
In cases like these, though, trolls are very visible due to the flamboyantness of their fallacies, for example, couldn't >>5000 see that if you want to help with intergenerational poverty there are better ways than sterilization? If you actually wanted to do something for them you'd be teaching them how to grow their food or something a lot simpler and actually good, but you have to turn a big blind fallacious eye at so many things if you want to troll or advocate for some stuff.
>>4876
Wasn't that a concept made up by Darwin's nephew or something like that? His family was a funny bunch of inbred people obsessed with the idea.
>>4894
is like kicking dead whales down the beach to bring bad news, but check this out.
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-028-eugenics-never-really-went-away/
But I agree, it's a concept that's very close to transhumanism, it could be that you can't have one without the other.
I think it'd be hard to be sure of that, given that genetic mutations are to an important extent random. Cancer is basically a product of cells' genetic misbehavior and it's the second more common cause of death in the US. Also we all have mutations that don't show up and recessive genes that we know nothing about. Perhaps the only way to be sure that you're not going to be regulated by those measures is being a regulator yourself. That might be the answer to your second question. Just another reason to have married Billy Gates before he was rich (was he ever not rich)
>>4874
>Honestly, I think most people who call for culling people are trolls.
I don't think so, as the issue has been brought up as a good thing in movies and such. Pieces like the movie Gattaca (or whatever its name was) made some people think that having "good genes" is what happens when you're tall, get good grades and do sports (Also the brother of the main guy in that movie was visibly taken from Nazi propaganda posters, wtf). But I know trolls are hard to tell from misinformed people.
In cases like these, though, trolls are very visible due to the flamboyantness of their fallacies, for example, couldn't >>5000 see that if you want to help with intergenerational poverty there are better ways than sterilization? If you actually wanted to do something for them you'd be teaching them how to grow their food or something a lot simpler and actually good, but you have to turn a big blind fallacious eye at so many things if you want to troll or advocate for some stuff.
>>4876
Wasn't that a concept made up by Darwin's nephew or something like that? His family was a funny bunch of inbred people obsessed with the idea.
>>4894
is like kicking dead whales down the beach to bring bad news, but check this out.
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-028-eugenics-never-really-went-away/
But I agree, it's a concept that's very close to transhumanism, it could be that you can't have one without the other.
>>4899
You are being overly dramatic. It would obviously be an overreach from the hand of the state to install proprietary software on people's computers. Putting the videos as recommended to their youtube accounts would be enough, and more likely to be accepted by the proles.
>>4935
You're describing something that looks a lot like Brave New World, by Huxley, who was an actual eugenecist writing about the plans they had for society. His brother was the director of the Brit Eugenics Institite that later changed names to P. Parenthood, IIRC.
>>4954
Is that actually Stirner? The little I read of his word sounded like a "fuarrrk everyone else" type of egoism.
>>4879
What Hotweels (if it's really him) argues for in that article is not eugenics, not by a long run. That article sounds like "I support communism because I think the minimal wage should be higher". Allowing handicapped people to inform themselves about their illness and how it would affect their children is something we already have, and that allows them to make the decision of wether to use contraceptives from then on. The thing about paying them big bucks to sterilize themselves is redundant, unless you want to impose the decision on the parents (also you recommended the article to the guy worried about the effect of the rich-poor breach, you're not helping him much there). And he makes that point citing the case of his fater, who was a borderline rapist. Do you guys think that he really wrote that? I'm not sure myself, the source doesn't look like a pinnacle of journalist objectivity.
>>5389
>I would have some semen frozen
Are you this lainon? >>>/diy/2664
>A different matter is dealing with the criminally insane, mass murderers, pedophiles and such. Forced euthanasia has my full support in such cases.
Euthanasia is that thing where they let a sick person die, would you get them sick first?
>>6569
Slippery slope.
You are being overly dramatic. It would obviously be an overreach from the hand of the state to install proprietary software on people's computers. Putting the videos as recommended to their youtube accounts would be enough, and more likely to be accepted by the proles.
>>4935
You're describing something that looks a lot like Brave New World, by Huxley, who was an actual eugenecist writing about the plans they had for society. His brother was the director of the Brit Eugenics Institite that later changed names to P. Parenthood, IIRC.
>>4954
Is that actually Stirner? The little I read of his word sounded like a "fuarrrk everyone else" type of egoism.
>>4879
What Hotweels (if it's really him) argues for in that article is not eugenics, not by a long run. That article sounds like "I support communism because I think the minimal wage should be higher". Allowing handicapped people to inform themselves about their illness and how it would affect their children is something we already have, and that allows them to make the decision of wether to use contraceptives from then on. The thing about paying them big bucks to sterilize themselves is redundant, unless you want to impose the decision on the parents (also you recommended the article to the guy worried about the effect of the rich-poor breach, you're not helping him much there). And he makes that point citing the case of his fater, who was a borderline rapist. Do you guys think that he really wrote that? I'm not sure myself, the source doesn't look like a pinnacle of journalist objectivity.
>>5389
>I would have some semen frozen
Are you this lainon? >>>/diy/2664
>A different matter is dealing with the criminally insane, mass murderers, pedophiles and such. Forced euthanasia has my full support in such cases.
Euthanasia is that thing where they let a sick person die, would you get them sick first?
>>6569
Slippery slope.