Eugenics

[anthony]

I've never been too interested in eugenics because I'm more interested in quality of life than the thing living it. What are the 9 foot tall prometheus people doing? I feel like any society that can get to the point where eugenics is considerable has already solved 99% of human issues. The problem facing human flourishing is not a ceiling on genetic quality, it's suppression of naturally emergent quality.

[rockies]

One of the prime reasons to embark on #Eugenics (or biological politics in general) is to improve both the human organism, and the society the organism creates. This is before we talk about unintentional periods of eugenic selection...

There are certain things we're limited from doing, with regards to both our lifespans and our societies. There is too much to be learned about the world in a single human lifespan. A creature that can live longer without falling prey to senility would learn significantly more, develop more complicated cultures, and get closer to the absolute truths of the world. These New Men would be healthier in toxic environments, more durable under stress, and generally less neurotic.

[BillyONare]

I think catgirls would be cooler than that

[Guest]

Overman gets cat girl harem, quality of life maximized

[rockies]

The problem facing human flourishing is not a ceiling on genetic quality, it's suppression of naturally emergent quality.

Because of the law of statistical averages, these problems are one-and-the-same. The ceiling in society, barring any biological limitations on higher intelligence, is dictated by the median of society. This is not strictly a problem with democracies, the average will always seek to drag down the higher. "Intelligence" is the chief concern in the hypothetical selection set being delineated here, because from a higher base intelligence, higher understanding of complex issues follows.

However, if there there are direct correlations between intelligence and crippling health issues for intelligence in excess of 140 IQ, then there's a point here, and a method for convincing societies to exalt excellence politically will be required. I don't believe this is the case, but there is always the possibility of an unforseen consequence or two.

[anthony]

The problem facing human flourishing is not a ceiling on genetic quality, it's suppression of naturally emergent quality.

Because of the law of statistical averages, these problems are one-and-the-same. The ceiling in society, barring any biological limitations on higher intelligence, is dictated by the median of society. This is not strictly a problem with democracies, the average will always seek to drag down the higher. "Intelligence" is the chief concern in the hypothetical selection set being delineated here, because from a higher base intelligence, higher understanding of complex issues follows.

However, if there there are direct correlations between intelligence and crippling health issues for intelligence in excess of 140 IQ, then there's a point here, and a method for convincing societies to exalt excellence politically will be required. I don't believe this is the case, but there is always the possibility of an unforseen consequence or two.

Got to be very careful about attributing deliberate decisions and actions to the dictates of natural forces. The average might seek to drag down the higher, but their win isn't inevitable. Yes, I believe the people who suppressed my naturally emergent qualities were evil mediocre normalfreaks who kind of sensed my nature and instinctively tried to crush me, but I really don't think it'd take that much to arrange society so that doesn't happen.

Have you seen the story of the British grammar schools? Yes they did get torn down, but what if they didn't? I can't believe that that was inevitable.

[rockies]

It's not hard to frame a few events in history as instances of the mediocre outnumbering and crushing the excellent in-vitro. Ultimately, one can fight an endless war against the mediocre to try and posit one's own rights, or one can win the war and do something else with the precious time saved. Those deliberate actions are not ex-nihilo ones, they have origins in the biological makeup of the lower types. Those feelings of satisfaction- pride, even- in mediocrity are, in part, inborn, and not permanently alterable with a system of social controls. All it takes is a single Voltaire, a single Marx to ask the question: "Well, why shouldn't WE share YOUR belongings? We work SO HARD, after all." There isn't a "crazy political trick" to fix this, as the excellent in this scenario will ALWAYS be in the minority. Such a thing has happened, and without explicit focus in society on preventing this, will continue to happen.

Beyond which, a 120 IQ society would not be the same as a 100 IQ society, as a 100 is not the same as an 80. Higher intelligence enables a very different engagement with the world, due to the social fabric of this hypothetical intelligent society. Theirs will be both a society with greater powers, and potentially greater challenges.

[Menthe]

I've never been too interested in eugenics because I'm more interested in quality of life than the thing living it. What are the 9 foot tall prometheus people doing? I feel like any society that can get to the point where eugenics is considerable has already solved 99% of human issues. The problem facing human flourishing is not a ceiling on genetic quality, it's suppression of naturally emergent quality.

I find myself agreeing with this. One of the less polemical aspects of eugenicism is selecting for genetics which are hardier to chronic diseases and other crippling ailments, however the last century until now has demonstrated that exposure of industrial excipients and other hazardous waste present in our foods, homes, and elsewhere are far more influential to the development of a sickly population than a set of genetics which may find itself more prone to those issues. Naturally it seems now that the dysgenic population is selecting itself out by succumbing to reduced birth rates and mental illness, but this fails to account for the fact that the causes for these issues are uniformly degenerative. It then seems fallacious to chalk up the increased rate of chronic illnesses to mere dysgenic distribution, when there are things such as heavy metals in vaccines administered to newborns which cause irreparable damage to their organism.

What seems to take precedence then in human experience, is living itself. Experiencing stress and imbibing noxious aliment render a far more "dysgenic" population than an unaccounted for development within a population. Many of the issues which seek to be remedied by eugenics are the wayward elements of industrialization, and ultimately it seems a gluttonous, festering life is more inspired by the ready availability of low-grade sustenance and living quarters (i.e. crude urbanization). Conversely I believe that permitting people to live perceptive, stimulating, nourished lives is conducive to a likewise generative culture. What must be accounted for is experience, which shapes men, rather than what forms their beginnings. It's the dignity of Man which allows him to elevate himself from animal life, which can degenerate when its environment is debased, Man can choose, and Man can struggle to better his environment.

[anthony]

I've never been too interested in eugenics because I'm more interested in quality of life than the thing living it. What are the 9 foot tall prometheus people doing? I feel like any society that can get to the point where eugenics is considerable has already solved 99% of human issues. The problem facing human flourishing is not a ceiling on genetic quality, it's suppression of naturally emergent quality.

I find myself agreeing with this. One of the less polemical aspects of eugenicism is selecting for genetics which are hardier to chronic diseases and other crippling ailments, however the last century until now has demonstrated that exposure of industrial excipients and other hazardous waste present in our foods, homes, and elsewhere are far more influential to the development of a sickly population than a set of genetics which may find itself more prone to those issues. Naturally it seems now that the dysgenic population is selecting itself out by succumbing to reduced birth rates and mental illness, but this fails to account for the fact that the causes for these issues are uniformly degenerative. It then seems fallacious to chalk up the increased rate of chronic illnesses to mere dysgenic distribution, when there are things such as heavy metals in vaccines administered to newborns which cause irreparable damage to their organism.

What seems to take precedence then in human experience, is living itself. Experiencing stress and imbibing noxious aliment render a far more "dysgenic" population than an unaccounted for development within a population. Many of the issues which seek to be remedied by eugenics are the wayward elements of industrialization, and ultimately it seems a gluttonous, festering life is more inspired by the ready availability of low-grade sustenance and living quarters (i.e. crude urbanization). Conversely I believe that permitting people to live perceptive, stimulating, nourished lives is conducive to a likewise generative culture. What must be accounted for is experience, which shapes men, rather than what forms their beginnings. It's the dignity of Man which allows him to elevate himself from animal life, which can degenerate when its environment is debased, Man can choose, and Man can struggle to better his environment.

I'm very careful about letting the word eugenic be applied to anything which is doing well in our time, for various reasons. One being that doing well in an impure age should probably be taken seriously as a potential sign of innate sickness rather than health. The second being that robustness seems to track with lower and simpler nature, and sensitivity tracks with a higher nature. Resistance is not necessarily superiority, it is far more likely simplicity. The third being that people tend to shift back and forth between attributing eugenics to natural and social selection, as suits their bad faith or very stupid arguments.

As you've said above, much of what many people will casually attribute to eugenics or dysgenics, or fitness or unfitness to live, is environmental. An actual socially implemented eugenics process would not start by observing what is. It would start by deciding what it wants. Really any "eugenics" case that doesn't start here feels like a bad faith argument for the status quo.

[Menthe]

True, decisiveness seems to be the determining factor for the notion of a true "Eugenic". A constructive approach to life is the only way it may elevate itself, as the prioritization of resilience is more in line with yeast-life. It seems then that the superfluous pays more heed to the divine, than that of worldly continuity.

[rockies]

What seems to take precedence then in human experience, is living itself. Experiencing stress and imbibing noxious aliment render a far more "dysgenic" population than an unaccounted for development within a population. Many of the issues which seek to be remedied by eugenics are the wayward elements of industrialization, and ultimately it seems a gluttonous, festering life is more inspired by the ready availability of low-grade sustenance and living quarters (i.e. crude urbanization).

The third being that people tend to shift back and forth between attributing eugenics to natural and social selection, as suits their bad faith or very stupid arguments.

As you've said above, much of what many people will casually attribute to eugenics or dysgenics, or fitness or unfitness to live, is environmental. An actual socially implemented eugenics process would not start by observing what is. It would start by deciding what it wants. Really any "eugenics" case that doesn't start here feels like a bad faith argument for the status quo.

Both prescient points. It should here be noted that the early American eugenics movements had that same interest in "healthier living" as a component of their awards- the Better Babies contests give nod to the importance of nutrition and physical activity, and for that to be integral to health is a given. While the Eugenic sciences began in the interest of mitigating industrial damage, it shouldn't stay there- one could propose a separate subfield of study for this reversal of industrial damage thru "good living", but the study of "good birth" should concern itself with genetic mechanics, inheritance, gene editing and the like.

(An aside- it would appear to me, from what I've seen, that human husbandry is one of the more circumstantial tools in the genetic engineer's arsenal.)

I find that discussing the tools of Eugenics, as well as the potential hurdles more interesting, than talking about only the concept of Eugenics as a whole. Mostly, because without the techniques and a wide base of technical knowledge, the discussion veers into the same kind of facile arguments about how Letting Women Sleep With 50 Men And Not Get Pregnant Once is "Eugenic". Gigadust is more a political and gatekeeping problem however, it's not inherent to the proper practice of Eugenics.

[AngloFan33]

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/lee-goldso...st-1043211

I never really had any huge violent outbursts, except maybe for threatening one annoying piece of shit with locked-in syndrome who'd always be wheeled in to my music class for some reason. That was about it, though. How I managed to keep my violent rage plugged in during my high school years I'll never know.

I mean, if I had a child who grew up to be like him, I'd probably just give up, either take him out or ship him out somewhere where I wouldn't deal with him.
To me, it's either I have a fully functioning child that I can be proud of or I have no child.

Holy keyed.

[BillyONare]

Reasonable. Every single reply to him is the most effeminate norwood speech I have ever heard. Amarnites stop lionizing kiwi farms and reddit to be contrarian.

[AngloFan33]

It's incredible to think how there's relatively no difference whatsoever between those replies to him and that specific inane brand of 'ironic obtuse leftist' currently seen on Twitter:

What's it like to look into the mirror every day and see a soulless monster gazing back at you?

You're actually a worthless piece of shit you know that?

[/url]
Scientifically proven.

Quit digging you psycho.


You're only making it worse with every post.

Holy Christ you're a shit.

Dude.Dude.

What in the fuck.

You are literally saying that a bunch of special ed people in high school that watched a fucking cartoon has turned you into a sociopath.

And that we should sympathize with you.

[url=https://kiwifarms.net/threads/lee-goldson-barneyfag-x86x2-revved.10780/page-73#post-1043648]Are you even human? Are you some defective android running Windows 98?

What in the fuck.



You are literally saying that a bunch of special ed people in high school that watched a fucking cartoon has turned you into a sociopath.



And that we should sympathize with you.


Are you even human? Are you some defective android running Windows 98?T



What in the fuck.



You are literally saying that a bunch of special ed people in high school that watched a fucking cartoon has turned you into a sociopath.



And that we should sympathize with you.


Are you even human? Are you some defective android running Windows 98?


What in the fuck.

You are literally saying that a bunch of special ed people in high school that watched a fucking cartoon has turned you into a sociopath.

And that we should sympathize with you.

Are you even human? Are you some defective android running Windows 98?

---

"Fucked up the last quote... forgive me, Hitler."

[anthony]

Both prescient points. It should here be noted that the early American eugenics movements had that same interest in "healthier living" as a component of their awards- the Better Babies contests give nod to the importance of nutrition and physical activity, and for that to be integral to health is a given. While the Eugenic sciences began in the interest of mitigating industrial damage, it shouldn't stay there- one could propose a separate subfield of study for this reversal of industrial damage thru "good living", but the study of "good birth" should concern itself with genetic mechanics, inheritance, gene editing and the like.

(An aside- it would appear to me, from what I've seen, that human husbandry is one of the more circumstantial tools in the genetic engineer's arsenal.)

I find that discussing the tools of Eugenics, as well as the potential hurdles more interesting, than talking about only the concept of Eugenics as a whole. Mostly, because without the techniques and a wide base of technical knowledge, the discussion veers into the same kind of facile arguments about how Letting Women Sleep With 50 Men And Not Get Pregnant Once is "Eugenic". Gigadust is more a political and gatekeeping problem however, it's not inherent to the proper practice of Eugenics.

How do you like "Epieugenics?

Reasonable. Every single reply to him is the most effeminate norwood speech I have ever heard. Amarnites stop lionizing kiwi farms and reddit to be contrarian.

Someone told me they were going to make a kiwifarms thread a while back but they never got around to it. Might be an interesting discussion to have. It's really one of the most awful sites/communities on the internet.

[rockies]

I'd been thinking about "Epieugenics" as a subfield for a while. There's a chance for it to inverse-coalische on it's own, but as a field of study it at least deserves discussion. The only thing that comes quickly to mind as an example is reverse-mRNA transcription however, which I do not know enough to comment on, but there are likely other examples of livelihood affecting the organism, one way or another.

[AngloFan33]

Going back to that Kiwi Farms thread where they soyrage over that guy who (rightfully) told off some space-occupying invalid and said he'd abandon his child if they were disabled, something I find to be particularly of interest is how for all their vapid moralizing, none of them can actually explain why he's so heckin evil and horrible for thinking that way. Like @BillyONare said, it's nothing but effeminate histrionics telling him he's a Bad Person because he just is, even in spite of him wording this obvious truth in the most reasonable and straightforward way imaginable. It's simply pathetic.

Tell me the benefits of being stuck in a wheelchair, unable to walk, just making nonverbal noises and tell me how that's better than being a normal human being. Who wouldn't want that? At times like this, I refer to the movie Johnny Got His Gun, where an army soldier loses his arms and legs and most of his sense, just being a head and a limbless body. Throughout the movie, he just wants to die because he doesn't want to live the way he is. That's the kind of reasoning I use, I guess, he'd be better off dead than the way he is now.

How about you let the person in that position decide, rather than mandating their execution because of your own personal opinion?

Bonus Norwoodism (made even more insidious by the fact that it features an an anime girl):

[Guest]

intelligence,beauty and strength are the things eugenics should select for.

[Guest]

I read somewhere that regression to the mean is just a quirk that shows up in some contexts e.g. human height because something something polygenic. Like, if you need a couple copies of a height gene for it to work, you can have some real tall people have some real short kids because only a few of their height genes types match up. The kid prob still has tall genes, just not a lot of them activated without another copy.

[august]

Hardcore WWWW eugenic theorising is worthy of discussion, but it only serves so much of a purpose in that the implementation of such practices is many steps away from where the person that seeks to do so currently stands. For one, I think that a society or group that has the improvement of its stock as its chief concern needs to already have in place an established system focused on positive eugenics before it even begins weighing possible routes of negative eugenics. More so than fixating on what is "eugenic" and what is not -- the term has undergone disastrous misinterpretation and misapplication across various spheres -- it seems that there is not as much attention given to the following question: how does one sensibly move the needle toward creating social conditions in which they would be able to begin working toward a set of desired eugenic ends? The difficulty surrounding this question doesn't center around identifying what steps are necessary to take; after all, #CommonSense arguments have existed for many decades now that abolishing the welfare state 'Charles Murray style' would inevitably result in both positive and negative eugenics. Rather, the difficulty is that the only people that pretend as though they are trying to do this are: 1. scared to outright state (or at the very least even imply) the goal, and as a result of that, 2. only provide lukewarm proposals that are either (a) conservatard versions of "mo money fo dem programz" or (b) outright dysgenic, i.e., "don't go to college". They are actually somewhat correct in advising that people shouldn't go to college because it is fake and a libtard scam, but the way they get there is completely misguided, and telling high-potential Whites who could otherwise compete at the highest academic level to abandon uni is, simply put, an abdication. Abdication of the university is exactly how higher learning (and the general society we live in) became what it is today in the first place. 

The truth is that probably somewhere between 70-90% of American 'academic' institutions should not exist. It has been said much earlier in this thread that "elite-intermarriage" is not eugenic. This may be so, today, but that's only because your so-called 'elites' today are RETARDS! And the aspiring Strivers being bred as the next class of 'elites' are women, effeminates, and foreigners. 

Please see the last will and testament of Cecil Rhodes, setting forth each of the four criterion (conjunctive) for consideration to become a Rhodes Scholar in 1902:



Now compare with the "Guiding Principles" of the Rhodes Trust today in the year 2023: 



This is the abdication of the academy. And that, to me, is what is standing in the daydreaming eugenicist's path. "Academia is dead in more ways than people know." This was recently reiterated to me by another user. This is true, and it remains dead. 



However, must it remain dead ad infinitum? "Marmoream relinquo, quam latericiam accepi." 

It has also been said in this thread that elite-intermarriages in aristocratic circles of the past were primarily concerned with land and property ownership, supporting the idea that they were not eugenic. This, again, is probably largely true. But that fact should not be emphasised so much, because the conditions of that society -- even if decadent in its own right -- were nothing like those of the society that we find ourselves living in today. Given that the current situation requires us, more than possibly ever before, to almost start from scratch, my proposal to this thread (rooted in #CommonSense and normie-friendly intuitiveness) is that the goal of any current eugenic efforts should be to focus on pairings between the male and female sexes in an effort to breed an ELITE and not an "elite". This would need to occur not all at once, but over time and in steps. Therefore, my theory of Phase 1 Eugenics would be: U.S. Supreme Court decisions overturning affirmative action and the Ginsburgermeister legacy of "Equal Protection" interpretation re: sex-based admissions. From there, you see the flourishing once more of a meritocratic Ivy League and Ivy League equivalents which, paired with #CommonSense immigration restrictions, would be dominated by White men. At the same time, a secondary effect of this (as intended) would be the reestablishment of respective "Seven Sisters" schools for the most promising young female students. I believe this would have the effect of reviving a serious academic environment while also creating male-only and female-only socialisation conditions, which in my view is of equal importance toward eugenic ends. As a result, we would see good pairings incentivised between the males and females of the respective academic institutions in the same way that students from the all-boys high school generally look to students from their all-girls sister school to ask to the big dance. To those who may say that we shouldn't factor in females and that they shouldn't be pursuing academics at all, you have to remember that this plan is grounded on a practical principle of gradual progression. You will be surprised how many females are pretending to care about education and academia (because it signals status); it's likely that, very quickly, only an infinitesimal percent would care about attending college compared to the amount we see today. What are people's thoughts?

I understand that this involves both the Woman Question and the Incel Question, but solving certain aspects of the former gets you halfway to solving many aspects of the latter. The natural effects of my proposal would solve a large portion of the dating issues that currently exist, as it would quickly eradicate many of the present falsities surrounding people's misguided ideas of their social status. If there is still an 'Incel Remainder' as a result of this, it should be significantly less than currently exists and, in any case, would be wholly consistent with the fundamental nature of eugenics itself: not everybody can win.

Please share any arguments against my proposal. I welcome all thoughts, including and especially critique and criticism.