tpaine posted:http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/12403/?page=7#post-252580also lesions answer for yourself.
Look. This is what I support for really logical and scientific eugenical reasons.
AynRandAnCap posted:when i think of eugenics, i associate that with selective breeding, and cutting up mentally handicapped people.
that's the inevitable result of it
also, have to take into consideration that everything within capitalism will work towards capital accumulation so the notion that "better technology and education will increase moral implementation of ____" is not likely. the "education" component is generally whitewashing and justifying what were previously considered immoral actions.
roseweird posted:just think about it, and if it still doesn't make sense to you whatever, forget about it
AmericanNazbro posted:like, ok, you support the notion of perfecting human beings at the genetic level, but how does one formulate a political ideology based upon that principle? in practice, and not within a hypothetical star trek ideal, which, doesn't even seem plausible given unlimited technology because "perfection" is subjective
Eugenics isnt about creating "perfect" beings, its about weeding out obvious flaws and inherited diseases in order to make the species itself healthier and more genetically robust overall
its also probably the only hope Humanity has left since the only selective survival pressures that remain in our current mode of civilization are split right down the middle between being able to huddle into the tightest possible corner of a UN refugee school and Phone App-Centric Hyperautism
Petrol posted:Do you, in fact, advocate steps (direct or otherwise) to intervene in human reproduction? What sociocultural changes would you hope to bring about by so doing?
Id be interested in you coming up with a single situation in which Humans DONT intervene in Human reproduction. Its kind of uhh....inherent in the process.
Petrol posted:Now, to take one of your examples - calorie quotas in Palestine - it's one thing to say that this will affect society in a number of ways. Obviously this is true. But to support a eugenicist position (and to be clear, I'm not saying this is your position), there'd need to be evidence that the calorie quotas imposed on one generation create specific, hereditary biological effects in later generations.
http://www.livescience.com/21902-diet-epigenetics-grandchildren.html
glomper_stomper posted:did the russian military or crimean russians block sevastopol airport?
or something
Superabound posted:Petrol posted:Do you, in fact, advocate steps (direct or otherwise) to intervene in human reproduction? What sociocultural changes would you hope to bring about by so doing?
Id be interested in you coming up with a single situation in which Humans DONT intervene in Human reproduction. Its kind of uhh....inherent in the process.
stop oppressing me
tpaine posted:i don't understand any of those so they aren't funny.
ssame.
Superabound posted:Id be interested in you coming up with a single situation in which Humans DONT intervene in Human reproduction. Its kind of uhh....inherent in the process.
i feel like you are misrepresenting petrol's point here. i believe petrol is talking about a third party that is excluded from the reproductive act, that is dictating how the act should occur. imagine some government bureaucrat saying you're too dumb or too weak to have sex. would you support that?
also, i feel as tho comparing eugenics with subjective physical attraction and safe sex is hugely understating the history of eugenics.