Eugenics Is Awesome!

Post Reply New Topic

I believe in contributing to society, distributing wealth, and giving nothing to the bottom-feeding dregs.

Eugenics is definitely integral for the good of society. We can only have beautiful people, mostly girls, in this world. It seems cruel, but it is completely necessary.

You see, if you have a nice-looking daughter, you can get them to make a TERRIBLE music video and make lots of money off it. That plan is plausible for distributing wealth throughout the country,and NO GOVERNMENT ACTION is involved.

Zum Beispiel:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DwT_2QQU64[/youtube]

and who can forget this subliminal brilliance?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0&feature=related[/youtube]

And not just females can be in the video. These women are rather good-looking (not American though):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ViK2n1oog[/youtube]

This is a famous example about not knowing a single thing and getting DISGUSTINGLY famous:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E[/youtube]

America only wants beautiful people to be famous and get all the good stuff. Eugenics can make people filthy rich in the long run, ending poverty and other social problems.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the third option (since no one will say Yes) was inspired by sartresue. The poll needed to be fair, and the choice now is 'No' or making fun of me. I appreciate the support.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 04 May 2011, 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Great things could be achieved with Eugenics, if it were not so abhorrent.

Dschinghis Khan have long been a guilty pleasure of mine.

I am a fanatical Eurovision devotee, though.

True.

Those with autism spectrum disorders would be near the top of the list. After people with 'criminal' tendencies (whether they have actually committed crimes or not), fatties, smokers, drinkers, people with unusual sexual tastes, those with mental health issues, etc.

Last edited by Tequila on 04 May 2011, 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Eugenics is pretty dumb and will never accurately reflect a 'perfect' Human being.
I am for gene therapy to eliminate negative traits (ie, lethal defects, etc) as we can mostly agree that things like cystic fibrosis and congenital heart defects are not up for interpretation as good/positive

That's how it would be in reality. It could be used to whatever ends you wished; a healthy life span of 200 years, and a higher IQ could also be achieved relatively easy.

hmm no one afraid of stagnation of the gene pool?

That is another important point

I would be, for aesthetic reasons. In survival terms, I think a genetically similar bunch of Einstein's would be able to tackle any problem Scientifically; If we want to have genetic diversity for microbiological defense, just have receptor variants

I beginning see your vision.
Sarah Palin forced at gunpoint to sleep with Dan Quayle.
Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan both forced to breed with Fabio.

All for ze good of ze fatherland!

With time we will create a master race of beautiful brainless super bimbos that vill conquer ze vorld!

i was also thinking of breeding problems arising similar to inbreeding but on a global scale.
besides genetic mutations are finicky, so trying to remove the ones we know might give rise to an all new set of problems.
not to speak of the possibility that they actually play an important part in our biology and the "simplification through lack of variety" destroys the balance over several generations.
now some defects are only that but we have no way of knowing what the effects is over multiple generations.

i see eugenics as foolhardy to even consider before we know the human biology a lot better than we do now.
even then i wouldnt be a supporter, no one knows what will be for the best and what was the most succesfull variant once arent neccesarily so tomorrow.

Extremely, What is viewed as good and beautiful doesn't always survive the next virus, or environmental change. Likely Eugenics on a grand scale would create a weaker species, all things considered, into the distant future.

But, we already practice that from a morphological illusory standpoint. Breast implants, plastic surgery, braces, contact lens, medical technology allowing us to survive into reproductive age and allowing successful births, that would otherwise not be successful.

These are all the things that give us the potential to attract a more desirable mate. However, the net result is opposite from Eugenics.

Still, the majority of people in the world don't have the full advantage of these morphological enhancements, so the species is likely to stay strong as a whole.

Why not genetic alteration to promote unambiguously positive traits though?

I'm not against that, but I worry about genetic stagnation, unless we artificially maintain a level of diversity of some kind

Variation is probably easy enough to introduce. It really depends on eugenic method. I mean, I think the best method would probably be outright genetic manipulation rather than sterilization programs. In fact, I generally oppose sterilization programs. Instead, I'd rather have designer babies, and we could probably make the entire thing work out alright if we just focus on the likely causes of bad variation.

I think receptor and intron diversity could be easily mantained.