A lot to unpack here, but the primary reason is that “everyone” survives, is led into adulthood, and encouraged to start a family. From an evolutionary standpoint, we don’t have any sort of filter who gets to live and breed, and no “survival of the fittest”. This is not only about childbirths, but also about who breeds (and raises) children.
Eugenics is not bad in of itself, but people consider it bad because they fear it will be forced upon them by racist/ableist powers. (Remember, a mother (and father) who chooses to abort if there is something bad unveiled through tests are also doing eugenics.)
Not saying we haven’t had this “problem” in the past, nor that we have to do something about it. It’s more a statement that we have a lot of idiots around…
“Survival of the fittest” isn’t that only the fittest survive and reproduce–it’s that they reproduce the most successfully, thus passing their genes on more than others do. This has both positive and negative consequences because there’s nothing smart about natural selection.
It’s also worth noting that what traits are important for survival change. Unfortunately, being a sociopath with no physical or mental fitness could be the most beneficial traits as far as reproduction goes.
people consider it bad because they fear it will be forced upon them by racist/ableist powers
Yes, because this was normal thinking 150 years ago when eugenics was gaining prominence:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
Every state application of eugenics since then has been applied to achieve some form of demographic reconstitution.
Nazism took the Western obsession with eugenics to its lowest point.
So yes, all eugenics is bad. Your example of the mother and father does not amount to eugenics as their motivation is not to “improve the human gene pool” and is instead much more personal.
Moreover, even if you could implement it perfectly, at first, whatever that means, any corruption of the system/change in power or policy creates a big potential problem. E.g. consider Trump inheriting these policies from Day 1, even if perfect.
Eugenics isn’t survival of the fittest though. It’s one group arbitrarily deciding whether another group deserves a chance to live.
I get what you’re trying to say about “suvival of the fittest” but you’re butchering the most basic understanding of that phrase. Survival of the fittest isn’t a choice made by someone or a group of people.
The chemical lobotomies are doing far worse. The lead, the fluoride, the mercury, the aluminium, the glyphosate, the hyper sugars, the pro-inflamatory oils and residues, the aspartame / aminosweet, the ascesulfame-K, the sucralose, the alcohol, the food dyes, the detergents, the fragrances, the chemstrails “geoengineering” chemicals, the shit on TV and tiktok sortening attention spans, the dumbing-down in the “education” system, on and on it goes…
Tackle breeding alone, with this kind of phenomic weight, I’m not sure you’ll get the best genome out the other side. … Nor have adequate means to measure or determine whatever’s the best criteria for whatever eugenics program’s presented by whichever’s the strongest big bully to take power in the absence of many capable minds to resist, from all the chemical lobotomies.
Nope. The world is being shat upon by a racist pedophile shitting diapers who was passively voted in. Anyone with a breadth of intellect can identify This is hell. I don’t want to know or meet the person who is even remotely ok with this.
We are breeding idiots.
A lot to unpack here, but the primary reason is that “everyone” survives, is led into adulthood, and encouraged to start a family. From an evolutionary standpoint, we don’t have any sort of filter who gets to live and breed, and no “survival of the fittest”. This is not only about childbirths, but also about who breeds (and raises) children.
Eugenics is not bad in of itself, but people consider it bad because they fear it will be forced upon them by racist/ableist powers. (Remember, a mother (and father) who chooses to abort if there is something bad unveiled through tests are also doing eugenics.)
Not saying we haven’t had this “problem” in the past, nor that we have to do something about it. It’s more a statement that we have a lot of idiots around…
“Survival of the fittest” isn’t that only the fittest survive and reproduce–it’s that they reproduce the most successfully, thus passing their genes on more than others do. This has both positive and negative consequences because there’s nothing smart about natural selection.
It’s also worth noting that what traits are important for survival change. Unfortunately, being a sociopath with no physical or mental fitness could be the most beneficial traits as far as reproduction goes.
Evolution is neutral.
Didn’t idiocracy start with your first paragraph?
Yes, because this was normal thinking 150 years ago when eugenics was gaining prominence:
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
Every state application of eugenics since then has been applied to achieve some form of demographic reconstitution.
Nazism took the Western obsession with eugenics to its lowest point.
So yes, all eugenics is bad. Your example of the mother and father does not amount to eugenics as their motivation is not to “improve the human gene pool” and is instead much more personal.
Moreover, even if you could implement it perfectly, at first, whatever that means, any corruption of the system/change in power or policy creates a big potential problem. E.g. consider Trump inheriting these policies from Day 1, even if perfect.
Eugenics isn’t survival of the fittest though. It’s one group arbitrarily deciding whether another group deserves a chance to live.
I get what you’re trying to say about “suvival of the fittest” but you’re butchering the most basic understanding of that phrase. Survival of the fittest isn’t a choice made by someone or a group of people.
It’s for sure not just the breeding.
The chemical lobotomies are doing far worse. The lead, the fluoride, the mercury, the aluminium, the glyphosate, the hyper sugars, the pro-inflamatory oils and residues, the aspartame / aminosweet, the ascesulfame-K, the sucralose, the alcohol, the food dyes, the detergents, the fragrances, the
chemstrails“geoengineering” chemicals, the shit on TV and tiktok sortening attention spans, the dumbing-down in the “education” system, on and on it goes…Tackle breeding alone, with this kind of phenomic weight, I’m not sure you’ll get the best genome out the other side. … Nor have adequate means to measure or determine whatever’s the best criteria for whatever eugenics program’s presented by whichever’s the strongest big bully to take power in the absence of many capable minds to resist, from all the chemical lobotomies.
I’m with you, despite knowing it’s seen as wrong.
A health issue that would have killed you at birth? No worries we have a fix for that. Shame your kid gets it next
Uh oh…
It’s funny cuz Conversely I’m currently idealizing life is not life but a form of hell.
If you’re under the belief you’re not the idiot to be here then you’re the tourist in idiot territory.
Or perhaps you Thinking you belong here and that they should die and leave you alone means you’re the demon maintaining hell.
Additionally I think we’re all idiots. We all have our moments. We all get to die at some point.
Are you okay?
Nope. The world is being shat upon by a racist pedophile shitting diapers who was passively voted in. Anyone with a breadth of intellect can identify This is hell. I don’t want to know or meet the person who is even remotely ok with this.