Looksmaxxing Forum Logo

Join 51,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

Register Log in
  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Poll Is eugenics a greater good?

Is eugenics a greater good?

  • Yes, most of humanity would benefitiate

    Votes: 10 47.6%

  • No, it would bring more harm then good.

    Votes: 11 52.4%
  • Total voters
    21
Whitepill said:
Eugenics is a crock of shit

Anyone can produce good looking kids , although it might take multiple generations
Click to expand...
I'd agree for the most part but mutations and recombination occurs so many times over and over which basically doesnt even garuntee average looking. And eugenics would mean like cutting them off as in abortion or euthanasia, gene modding, more on.
 
osteochondromyxoma said:
I'd agree for the most part but mutations and recombination occurs so many times over and over which basically doesnt even garuntee average looking. And eugenics would mean like cutting them off as in abortion or euthanasia, gene modding, more on.
Click to expand...
But yes in nature they would die off, maybe not peacefully as much as our tech would do so but yes.
 
Whitepill said:
Eugenics is a crock of shit

Anyone can produce good looking kids , although it might take multiple generations
Click to expand...
Kaari said:
On paper it sounds good, I’m just worried what people might do with it if that makes any sense.
Click to expand...
But we could eliminate all genetic problems and give extra protection against all sickness, people would suffer less from all sorts of sickness
 
Yes it's good and ideal , and most importantly nature
The human society and economics have disrupted the natural order ( natural selection ) . All animals practice eugenics
 
Eugenics would greatly reduce all the people who have horrible congenital disorders like the swollen head babies. But then you wouldn't see them live on tiktok jfl.
 
MA_ascender said:
it will make the blackpill 10000000000000 times worse


1 man will sell his sperm for more than gold to all the women of the earth, stacy Ova will know the same fate
Click to expand...
Plus eugenics has a lot more at play. If people get their hands on knowledge regarding genetic engineering and it happens to fall in the wrong ones, needless to say we are in for a world of hurt. There’s a lot more to eugenics than just ‘it will make you good looking bro’.
 
natural eugenics are alright. animals selectively choose their partners using biases such as health. and they typically resist unhealthy partners. this is natural and they want to produce healthy children.
unhealthy species are also more likely to die or be infertile, which reduces the chance of them spreading their genes.
nature's way will lead to an overall healthy population with a small population of outliers that are unhealthy, and if they fail to do so, then either the species will bounce back to this balance or go extinct.

however, we should not be selectively breeding humans, i believe greatly in freedom of union, and generally humans on their own will produce healthy young in a healthy environment.

some animals also kill their sick, injured, and weak young. not all do-- some work together socially (especially social animals like humans) to support other disabled members. for example, george and mabel, a crow couple: mabel has a broken beak and george helps feed her.
there is also evidence that prehistoric did commonly. humans lived in tribes from 50-150 people, so they could work together to support someone disabled who could to a certain extent function. a cave-man suffering from klippel-fail syndrome (congenital, so from birth) could not care for himself, feed or keep himself clean, but his tribe helped him. other cave-people who suffered from congenital conditions, long lasting brain damage, disease, and amputees were still cared for.
even disabled people can help support a community, if they can't do certain tasks they can do others instead. nowadays we are especially fortunate for modern tech, where we can save and help more people live their lives more independently. we have people like stephen hawking, making great contributions to physics.
i provided these examples to show that it is natural for us humans to provide for the disabled, and that disabled people still can also provide some for their community back.
but even then, i believe in the value of human life being higher than your ability to provide, and that everyone should have a right to life as long as they don't infringe on someone else's right to life. so even if there was a completely disabled person who could not provide for his community, he still deserves the right to live.
we should not use disabilities to define the worth of an individual. there is a human being who thinks and feels behind these imperfections, and this humanity in itself is a wonder.

also, eugenics can be manipulated greatly. while it can reap some benefits, it can be abused to say, create efficient workers and soldiers; essentially tools/weapons, molded slaves. then people's biases and trends. we see shifts in beauty standards, from across time periods and cultures. so, if grey eyes became trendy, and people were bred and babies aborted and genes modified for this, and then in the next 10 years hazel eyes turn trendy, is it fair to have infringed on people's right to life over this? we will also see things like unfairness, with rich people modifying traits for themselves and offsrpings to live longer, look younger, be more efficient, while the proletariat struggles, and reaps no benefits. it'll advantage the rich and used for controlling the population.


TLDR:
  • Natural selection in animals is a biological reality.
  • Human freedom of (sexual) union is essential.
  • Human society has and can continue to care for the disabled, with human reasoning taken into account.
  • Eugenics poses significant ethical and societal risks, allowing for it to be abused and used for control.
 
sigma said:
natural eugenics are alright. animals selectively choose their partners using biases such as health. and they typically resist unhealthy partners. this is natural and they want to produce healthy children.
unhealthy species are also more likely to die or be infertile, which reduces the chance of them spreading their genes.
nature's way will lead to an overall healthy population with a small population of outliers that are unhealthy, and if they fail to do so, then either the species will bounce back to this balance or go extinct.

however, we should not be selectively breeding humans, i believe greatly in freedom of union, and generally humans on their own will produce healthy young in a healthy environment.

some animals also kill their sick, injured, and weak young. not all do-- some work together socially (especially social animals like humans) to support other disabled members. for example, george and mabel, a crow couple: mabel has a broken beak and george helps feed her.
there is also evidence that prehistoric did commonly. humans lived in tribes from 50-150 people, so they could work together to support someone disabled who could to a certain extent function. a cave-man suffering from klippel-fail syndrome (congenital, so from birth) could not care for himself, feed or keep himself clean, but his tribe helped him. other cave-people who suffered from congenital conditions, long lasting brain damage, disease, and amputees were still cared for.
even disabled people can help support a community, if they can't do certain tasks they can do others instead. nowadays we are especially fortunate for modern tech, where we can save and help more people live their lives more independently. we have people like stephen hawking, making great contributions to physics.
i provided these examples to show that it is natural for us humans to provide for the disabled, and that disabled people still can also provide some for their community back.
but even then, i believe in the value of human life being higher than your ability to provide, and that everyone should have a right to life as long as they don't infringe on someone else's right to life. so even if there was a completely disabled person who could not provide for his community, he still deserves the right to live.
we should not use disabilities to define the worth of an individual. there is a human being who thinks and feels behind these imperfections, and this humanity in itself is a wonder.

also, eugenics can be manipulated greatly. while it can reap some benefits, it can be abused to say, create efficient workers and soldiers; essentially tools/weapons, molded slaves. then people's biases and trends. we see shifts in beauty standards, from across time periods and cultures. so, if grey eyes became trendy, and people were bred and babies aborted and genes modified for this, and then in the next 10 years hazel eyes turn trendy, is it fair to have infringed on people's right to life over this? we will also see things like unfairness, with rich people modifying traits for themselves and offsrpings to live longer, look younger, be more efficient, while the proletariat struggles, and reaps no benefits. it'll advantage the rich and used for controlling the population.


TLDR:
  • Natural selection in animals is a biological reality.
  • Human freedom of (sexual) union is essential.
  • Human society has and can continue to care for the disabled, with human reasoning taken into account.
  • Eugenics poses significant ethical and societal risks, allowing for it to be abused and used for control.
Click to expand...
blud could’ve made a thread about this but decided to put blood sweat and tears into just one humble reply, mirin
 
Development = genetics
 
sigma said:
natural eugenics are alright. animals selectively choose their partners using biases such as health. and they typically resist unhealthy partners. this is natural and they want to produce healthy children.
unhealthy species are also more likely to die or be infertile, which reduces the chance of them spreading their genes.
nature's way will lead to an overall healthy population with a small population of outliers that are unhealthy, and if they fail to do so, then either the species will bounce back to this balance or go extinct.

however, we should not be selectively breeding humans, i believe greatly in freedom of union, and generally humans on their own will produce healthy young in a healthy environment.

some animals also kill their sick, injured, and weak young. not all do-- some work together socially (especially social animals like humans) to support other disabled members. for example, george and mabel, a crow couple: mabel has a broken beak and george helps feed her.
there is also evidence that prehistoric did commonly. humans lived in tribes from 50-150 people, so they could work together to support someone disabled who could to a certain extent function. a cave-man suffering from klippel-fail syndrome (congenital, so from birth) could not care for himself, feed or keep himself clean, but his tribe helped him. other cave-people who suffered from congenital conditions, long lasting brain damage, disease, and amputees were still cared for.
even disabled people can help support a community, if they can't do certain tasks they can do others instead. nowadays we are especially fortunate for modern tech, where we can save and help more people live their lives more independently. we have people like stephen hawking, making great contributions to physics.
i provided these examples to show that it is natural for us humans to provide for the disabled, and that disabled people still can also provide some for their community back.
but even then, i believe in the value of human life being higher than your ability to provide, and that everyone should have a right to life as long as they don't infringe on someone else's right to life. so even if there was a completely disabled person who could not provide for his community, he still deserves the right to live.
we should not use disabilities to define the worth of an individual. there is a human being who thinks and feels behind these imperfections, and this humanity in itself is a wonder.

also, eugenics can be manipulated greatly. while it can reap some benefits, it can be abused to say, create efficient workers and soldiers; essentially tools/weapons, molded slaves. then people's biases and trends. we see shifts in beauty standards, from across time periods and cultures. so, if grey eyes became trendy, and people were bred and babies aborted and genes modified for this, and then in the next 10 years hazel eyes turn trendy, is it fair to have infringed on people's right to life over this? we will also see things like unfairness, with rich people modifying traits for themselves and offsrpings to live longer, look younger, be more efficient, while the proletariat struggles, and reaps no benefits. it'll advantage the rich and used for controlling the population.


TLDR:
  • Natural selection in animals is a biological reality.
  • Human freedom of (sexual) union is essential.
  • Human society has and can continue to care for the disabled, with human reasoning taken into account.
  • Eugenics poses significant ethical and societal risks, allowing for it to be abused and used for control.
Click to expand...
putting people in an even more controlled environment will produce even worse eugenics is only needed if u want to selective breed for unusual characteristics like iq regular people see someone hot and they fuck and cycle continues issue is laxed survival pressures

People live in cycle and we will eventually society will fail due to mass identity crisis and infertility because of mutational load and unhealthy lifestyle there is no conceivable way everybody can go through millions of years of adaptations to modern life with little environment pressures and in a few decades
 
jkcwakcjw said:
putting people in an even more controlled environment will produce even worse eugenics is only needed if u want to selective breed for unusual characteristics like iq regular people see someone hot and they fuck and cycle continues issue is laxed survival pressures

People live in cycle and we will eventually society will fail due to mass identity crisis and infertility because of mutational load and unhealthy lifestyle there is no conceivable way everybody can go through millions of years of adaptations to modern life with little environment pressures and in a few decades
Click to expand...
never said anything about a controlled environment
also sexual selection is still a pressure
 
sigma said:
never said anything about a controlled environment
also sexual selection is still a pressure
Click to expand...
idk about the terminology but for me sexual selection isn't a strong enough pressure. If society allows for someone like a sub 5 to survive, then there is probably a lot of other people living similarly, and they will just repress attraction instinct for the sake of their genes. So, a lot of sub 5 people are able to pass on their genes, until infertility happens. But, we aren't creating enough attractive people to offset this because of how bad nutrition is. I really think nutrition of ancestor's and yourself is the difference between sub 5 and chad
 
jkcwakcjw said:
idk about the terminology but for me sexual selection isn't a strong enough pressure. If society allows for someone like a sub 5 to survive, then there is probably a lot of other people living similarly, and they will just repress attraction instinct for the sake of their genes. So, a lot of sub 5 people are able to pass on their genes, until infertility happens. But, we aren't creating enough attractive people to offset this because of how bad nutrition is. I really think nutrition of ancestor's and yourself is the difference between sub 5 and chad
Click to expand...
there will always be a portion of the population that has shit genes, even in nature
but they remain a minority
if they arent, the species may go endangered/extinct if it doesnt have contingencies
if there are sub5s as a majority, then that means we as a species will suffer without other factors assisting you
besides, there are incel forums rampant with sub5s, not chads, just shows that sexual selection doesnt allow them to reproduce
and no, nutrition is not everything. there are many factors into play, with nutrition being very significant
the fact that some sub5s get to reproduce doesnt mean that sexual selection isnt a strong enough pressure for beauty
 
sigma said:
there will always be a portion of the population that has shit genes, even in nature
but they remain a minority
if they arent, the species may go endangered/extinct if it doesnt have contingencies
if there are sub5s as a majority, then that means we as a species will suffer without other factors assisting you
besides, there are incel forums rampant with sub5s, not chads, just shows that sexual selection doesnt allow them to reproduce
and no, nutrition is not everything. there are many factors into play, with nutrition being very significant
the fact that some sub5s get to reproduce doesnt mean that sexual selection isnt a strong enough pressure for beauty
Click to expand...
what ive seen, which isnt super conducive yet is that a lot of relationships are just on the premise of genetically and financially settling down with older people like in 30s or 40s shown by how shitty marriages are and how many beta buxers there are they probably represent a smaller population than I think
 
Hakf the forum is in favor of eugenics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (Looksmaxxers: 0, Guests: 1)
Back
Top