Why don't we just oppress and sterilise the inferior of all races? There is no need to be racist. It makes more sense. We can breed 5 ft ponies into 8 ft horses that can do 40 mph, we can do the same with humanity to breed healthier, more intelligent humans. It can be done humanely aswell using egg and sperm donors and transplants, couples can still have children, they just won't have their genes. I believe that anyone who is obsessed with passing their genes on even though their genes may well be completely useless has serious problems. Eugenics is more humane than willingly allowing future generations to have inferior genes when it can be avoided.
Oh and inferior people are less sentient than the elite, they deserve less rights.
As a black male I do not feel threatenned by eugenics, although most of my race would be classed as inferior I am mediocre in intelligence and would not bat an eyelid to see 80% of my black brothers and sisters sent back to the fields whilst I am rightly sent to community college to become a mechanic or plumber.
If you are gonna do Eugenics, do it right. Sterilize everyone with an IQ below 110 who is not a sports genius and not unhealthy.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-19 15:16
>>3
We should take it slow to begin with, just to get rid of genetic disease. Eugenics science has a lot of potential, but unfortunately only fascists seem to have botherred with it and mixed it's practice with a lot of pseudo-science. Humanity is mature enoguh to implement eugenics now.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-19 16:33
Let's just oppres the poor and recolonize 3rd world. Just like in good old times.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-19 18:32
>>5
We should be meritocratic and leave other countries alone.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-19 18:50
I have been thinking about eugenics as a viable alternative to our SEVERLY lacking natural selection.
However there is no way to perform such an exclusive action save extreme social reform that would have to come from some sort of nuclear holocost.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-20 0:09
What
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-20 0:23
At this point we might as well wait another 30 years until we have the ability to just rewrite the human genome and perfect in vitro fertilization and growth. Then we just ban children.
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-20 0:48
GATTACA
Name:
Anonymous2006-09-20 2:14
Short explanation:
Eugenics = inbreeding = bad
Long explanation:
According to the theory of evolution, eugenics removes the natural part of evolution. If you read any pulp sci-fi that address the issue of eugenics, a common theme is the extinction of the human race through the removal of diverse properties of the human condition that are common as stepping stones to natural evolution.
For those of us who may not comprehend, this means we die because we're everyone's cousin and have too little a genepool. Evolution addresses this problem by making sure the next generation, however slightly, isn't the same as its ancestors.
An example of this natural evolution can be found with our feet, which although are the same size for the past few hundred generations, are neverless now have less toe and more sole. This has been supported through archaeology.
Succint version of the long:
Eugenics = Generations * (Normal + (evolution + mutation = diversity) - Diversity) = Inbreeding = Bad
>>7
Wrong, major social changes can occur in just a few years and it doesn't need totalitarianism. A slow evolution from our current state to a productive acceptance and implementation of eugenics would allow people the time to investigate eugenics, see the good that it does and discuss what they think is wrong with it. Unlike most of the extremists on this board I welcome criticism and believe a slow evolution is the best way to go about making these changes since there are bound to be problems and if the changes occur slowly these problems will occur on a small scale and can be corrected before eugenics reaches the next level.
>>9
Even if that is possible, we will still need to have children and eugenics would be the best way to ensure children are healthy, intelligent and happy.
>>11
Sorry but that is fail^10. There is a way that inbreeding can be taken into account so that eugenics can work, eugenics is a science fuckwit, it isn't a set doctrine. Also all of humanity came from a small group of humans in africa that survived a catastrophic volcanic explosion. Inbreeding only leads to extinction if there are like 2 people left alive.