Eugenics

Is eugenics compatible with leftist thought?

Attached: 708720FF-B1FF-4065-B829-084EA3433CF0.jpeg (643x358, 278.64K)

Other urls found in this thread:

elcenia.com/iamapirate/schelling.pdf
nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/forget-north-korea-pakistans-nuclear-weapons-should-truly-26031
historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
archive.org/details/SPKTurnIllnessIntoAWeapon/page/n1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_insects

No

No, but mandatory genetic modification is

no its not, people need to realize spergs are master race and to destroy them in favor of NTs is going backwards

The science isn't but the deed itself is.

Yeah I'm not gonna sit here and justify exterminating a mass of people because of their skin color or religion when liberalism is why everything sucks.

The thing is when reactionaries commit genocide the libtank cucks make the mistake of being upset by it. Why? Fuck those people. Especially if it was women or moderators killed. But probably not as both are rats and cockroaches always hiding in shadows letting some working man take the fall.

If you insist on distinguishing the hordes of unfit to live, I'd say look at their moral patterns and you'll find its often white middle class that need to be gassed. IE: mods and women. All live comfortably, all live in gated communities, all need a bullet in their head as if they don't they will never know struggle of any kind because they're so fucking privileged.

But black man, Arab man, even Jewish man is our ally.

Attached: ac0.jpg (680x686, 50.59K)

It depends on what you mean by "eugenics".
Getting rid of hereditary diseases, performing genetic engineering on babies and stuff is alright.
Holocausting people because of spooks is not OK.

You do no-fap, don't you?

I mean the former ofc. Stuff like financed eugenical abortions, sterilization in extreme cases, but only for dangerous hereditary diseases. Not moral spooks.

Criminals, the autistic, people with down-syndrome, alcohol or drug problems or various other kinds of mental illness should either be forcibly euthanized or at least sterilized in cases where they are not a complete drain on society. If they cannot work, they will be put to death.

You should also include incels on this list too. Their inceldom is nature's way of saying that they are unfit.

Nice "Master Race" spooks you've got there, kiddo.

Attached: d74.jpg (542x535, 41.93K)

True, but that was pretty much implied. Incels are the unfit. In primitive conditions the incels would have died off but there is a surplus of unfit in the modern conditions.

I never mentioned anything about “master races” in my post. You are likely targeted by my specifications if you are offended by who needs culled for building a better humanity

Thats true in fact, „inceldom” is natural eugenics in practice, preventing faulty and unfit from breeding

Yeah, well your idea of a "Better Humanity" bu "culling the weak" is still based on nothing but spooks.

That is not an argument. The elimination of the faulty and weak is beneficial for both the eliminated themselves and the wider society at large who is freed from having to support such people who are unable to live normal lives or support themselves. A life unworthy of living should be snuffed in mercy

Yes it is an argument, because your rationale behind it is based on a phantom of a "Better Humanity" that you have concocted in your head.

Not to mention that Eugenics is mostly based on faulty backwards notions of racial superiority, which too is nothing but idiotic identity spooks people came up with as justification for their actions.

While i agree with you ideal of bettering humanity and eliminating weakness, addictions and bad habits are not hereditary traits

Who cares
There's no hope for the left

Attached: choice.jpg (540x960, 51.29K)

Attached: zwinp7u2id321.png (625x910, 414.39K)

Sterilization/Death isn’t necessary for these people though, only genetic modification.

Many important scientists are “Incels” though. But women don’t like smart guys, they like guys with loads of cash or gym rats.

Well go work out for a year and get back to me on that.

Attached: Screenshot_20180626_073642.png (3360x1080, 512K)

Shit never cropped my screen.

Attached: do it razors.png (500x596, 145.35K)

I wouldn't say that they don't like them but more that they don't care.
A rich smart guy will be popular.

You have to go back.

Eugenics is missing the point completely.
The reason our genepool is so fucked up is due to arranged and political marriages.
We got bad sight, British teeth and small pee pees, because people had no say in choosing their partners. Their families did. And connections and ties were much more important than biological traits, leading to some sort of self-domestication with all the disadvantages "pure breeds" bring.
Now with sexual liberation on the full roll, there is no need to regulate this.

Capitalism didn't really solved to problem entirely, ties, connections and money still play an important role. People aren't forced into marriage but their pool of partner options is limited by a bunch of artificial factors that wouldn't be a thing in a "legitimately free" system.

People who can't let go of bourgeois ideology like you are a huge problem with any authoritarian socialism because they always use their power to go after their pet peeves instead of helping the people.

This won’t be a problem in fifty years because of genetic engineering.

If you want a society of the broken and weak, go ahead and try to create it – it will fail. The future is through authoritarian communism, far more authoritiarian than the USSR ever was. Think Blanqui or barracks communism

this

The very OG original model of Eugenics WAS what one could call a "Progressive" movement
But no not in the modern sense

as a Nazbol myself this goes a bit far. autistics can be useful shock troops for local militias. rehab is better than euthanizing drunks and drug addicts (I had a cousin who had problems with this), downies didn't hurt anyone. criminals though, fuck em.


lol, no.

"barracks communism" "Blanqui"

like these terms. but things aren't so cut and dry with certain types of people. in fact, overemphasis on eugenics, is more American-style than NatSoc, Nazbol, or Fash. Americans even criticized Hitler for being too soft on eugenics.

for those, I'll even add, what about a Dirlewanger for them? autists are useful in tech and policy management, like economics. like I said, final word on the matter, people aren't cut and dry that EVERY SINGLE ONE should be culled.

It is, but not for the autistic reasons the manlet retard known as Hitler did.

Getting rid of severe hereditary diseases/unwanted genetics? Sure. Stuff like cancer/diabetes/short height/etc needs to be adressed.

Doing it because "muh aryan masturd race"? No. The white race isn't any different from any other race, biologically speaking. It's all spooked garbage.

Long-story-short: Eugenics must be embraced for evolutionary reasons, not idpol reasons.

tf did I just read?

I guess the Chinese are fucked then.

Revolution is a criminal act.

also


I swear, LOL DON'T MAKE FUN OF BLACKS AND WIMMINS U GUISE

proceeds to make fun of other demographics. regardless if he was or not, everyone is spooked with idpol, even as much as this board rails against it. even stirnercunt does this, advocates for advancement of the self and then shills for feminism. no true scotsman, indeed.

This will make moral arguments about eugenics irrelevant, leaving us with basically 3 choices:
a) no regulation or science, future of humanity (and uplifted/engineered monstrosities) will be decided by the same shit taste as consumer fashion, unbound even by the requirement that every human being is at least descended from two people capable of hooking up with a member of the opposite sex.
b) strict eugenics based on scientific standards of meritocracy
c) Star Trek-style blanket ban on genetic engineering

Attached: fmab central military poster.jpg (2344x3462, 2.07M)

If you ban or limit genetic engineering, people will just break your ban. As time goes on the science will become easier to use and easier to learn. Once it comes to the point that pretty much anyone can use it, any ban will be pointless.

Yes, and I'm convinced it is morally obliged. An idealist shortcut cut be when you assume the Hegelian Weltgeist, then development of a higher species is simply a reemergence to it. But let me state few premises to mount my materialist argument why eugenics are preferable.

P1. Material conditions act with selection pressure on living beings. This main point of evolution theory was already acknowledged by Marx and Engels which were highly influenced by Darwin.
P2. Humans go extinct when each is on one's own. Currently, we face global crises which can only be overcome as a global community, such as climate change, migration, scarcity of ressources and much more.
P3. A wide range in experiences, thoughts and emotions makes a life more worth living. Who wants to be in a coma or wants to be trapped in a Groundhog Day?
P4. Today's material conditions jeopardize humanity and their range of experiences, thoughts and emotions. Capitalism monopolizes the way of living and diversity of cultures vanishes. People live the illusion of pseudo-individuality.

These premises should be rather accepted on this board. Let me explain now my evolutionary strategy to justify eugenics eventhough my ancestors died in the Nazi regime just because of eugenic doctrines. A bit of ad hominem won't hurt.
S1. High intelligence and high ethical standards are important to let rational beings survive. Humans are endowed with reason and moral. Nowadays problems call for technological progress, contentment and harmony with nature which is highly challenging for most of today's humanity.
S2. The essential difference between humans and other species is that we can intentionally shift our evolution. Democracy suspends natural evolution as we let unfit replicate their genes. And we can even edit genes.
S3. Some humans with moral flaws jeopardize humanity. Humans a material beings, too and thus, this is true when you accept P4. Imagine scientists, technicians and politicians who are responsible for the construction of mass destruction weapons like the atom bomb.
S4. The options for humanity are technological advancements which let capitalism adapt, doom, global eco-dictatorship or communism. Communism as Marx and Engels define as naturalist humanism in MEW 40, p.535.
S5. Future events can lead to a dystopia and more intelligent and ethical beings can hinder this events and better cope with them. As we can learn form history, when capitalism crashes, fascim will arise. Mainly intellectuals and those who are influenced by them can rebell for an emanipatory revolution.
S6. Communism is the most likely outcome to broaden the possibility to broaden the range in experiences, thoughts and emotions because it is constituted by the principle of cooperation.

C1. To broaden the range of experiences, thoughts and emotions means to achieve higher species. [spoiler]One might argue that totality of capitalism is already to big that leftists movements can arise in Europe or USA without getting subverted by secret agencies, military or financial attacks.[spoiler]
C2. Higher species are more likely to evolve communism.
C3a. Homeostatic, superintelligent machines should gain sovereignty but this would let capitalism survive. Hey silicon valley, you can throw as much LSD as you want on Burning Man, you are NOT hippies! You are NOT saving humanity, just a retarding element - at least!
C3b. Higher species should evolve from good human genes. This is a radical eugenic statement. Just imagine a half vulcan half human like spock. Isn't it superior?
So as long you don't wont to get reigned by something which have a unpredictable dynamic as machines can have, you go with eugenics. The other option is to hope for a positive post-apocalyptic anarchy when the doom happens.
On a sidenote I like to remark that this argument is ethically independent meaning that it is true in utilitarism, deontology, virtue ethics, contractualism and discurse ethics. The argument is not well rounded yet, but I think you get the point :3

Attached: varoufakis spock.jpg (634x576, 37.99K)

Weapons of mass destruction, such as the atom bomb are actually good for humanity though. Because of Mutually Assured Destruction major powers will not go to war. It is nearly impossible. Without Nukes the Cold War would’ve gone hot. The atom bomb is a sense saved lives.
Morality is subjective, don’t force your subjective idea of morality down the collective thought of morality.

My point is, we need less regulation and not more.

t. doesn’t know divine Truth

Check your facts, comrade.

Weapons of mass destruction almost caused the nuclear apocalypse few times. There were so many events in which the catastrophe was already there due to misunderstandings (able arche or B59 incident), accidents (Serpukhov 15 incident or Norad bug), coincidences or such. Also, nuclear bombs already killed over a million of people (incl. long-term effects) and caused irreversibel harm to nature which still causes diseases like thyroid cancer. Basically, game theory on which your argument is based also proves you wrong because nuclear bomb risk taking is beyond rationality. Here, for introduction Schelling's "The Strategy of Conflict" ( elcenia.com/iamapirate/schelling.pdf ). Especially, with someone like Trump in office, I wouldn't stick to your dogmatic statement. Also, when you believe in some metaphysical entities, you can willingly sacrifice yourselve because of an afterlife, so why should a state like Pakistan care to use a bomb? ( nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/forget-north-korea-pakistans-nuclear-weapons-should-truly-26031 )

Moral flaws are facts. Everyone has a moral conviction, even amoral individuals believe that there are no moral norms. Having no moral at all is a flaw because it is enstranged from humanity. But moral flaws also emerge when you are hypocritical to your own moral norms. This has nothing to do with my judgement of other persons but is simple conceptual application of logic.

Morals themselves are subjective in the absolute, but relative to any purported set of goals, every moral system can be ranked from least to most effective in an objective way.

Take a damn genetics class, that's not how speciation works.

I put this conclusion intentionally in that way that it can be interpreted very broadly. You seem to interpret it very narrowed though. Let me strengthen my argument.

Health, look, intelligence and peacefulness can be enhanced by eugenics. How can you be against such a world? I think on the long run we should overcome sex as a method of reproduction. Against common dystopian fiction, this doesn't necessarily means the end of diversity but can even lift diversity on a different, more sophisticated level. Furthermore, the believe that humanity should evolve and isn't at its end is a profound progressive conviction and basis of communism. Why should we let natural evolution happen when we can guide it to humanist values? Also, isn't it a paradoxon to be contra eugenics but pro abortion?

Anyways, when the left doesn't appropriate this topic, sooner or later other movements with other moral values will. I don't want a fascism based on genes, I want to hinder it.

Attached: 566d75ab57d81028b728c2484727012af129e7a7cb20144f3282497ec6b88a6c.jpg (1920x1074, 482.05K)

No one died from these exchanges. Where if their were no Nukes their would be a Third World War, which would’ve killed millions.

These were because of poor radar technology, which is not a problem anymore.

If America invaded Japan conventualy many more would have died.
historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/

The people who run states don’t believe in that shit, they just say that shit to control people.

Humanism is a shit philosophy. It is conflict, not peace that drives progress. Wars should be avoided, however human aggressiveness is what causes people to strive to be better and more prestigious than their peers. This is what causes innovation. Getting rid of aggressiveness would doom us to stagnation.

*sniff sniff* This post reeks of liberal garbage

Shit wasn’t built by people holding hands and siting in a circle an talking about love. It was people trying to one up each other for social capital.

Kill yourself fascist

Funny, coming from someone who supports Eugenics

Hurr

It's about the possibility and historical fact about how close we were that refutes your statement.

It's about to build up the infrastructure which can be easily taken over by other forces who think differently.

So you are not a communist and not a Marxist.

Is progress an end for itself? What's bad about living in homeostasis? What about muse as the condition of philosophy?

Please, this Hobbesian though ("A man is a wolf to another man") has been empirically rejected. A psychoanalysist might claim you have necrophile tendencies. Curiosity and needs (biological, social, transendent) causes people to strive, at least unalienated, enlightened humans.

Each of these exchanges would simply be impossible today because they were caused by poor radar technology. What is important is that WW3 didn’t happen because of MAD. That’s a good thing.

Humanism is idealsit. i am a Marxist because I am a Materialist. Things have material causes.

When progress stops, living standards stop rising. Also more progress allows us to be able to solve more and more complex problems. Stagnation will doom us to being destroyed by some future problem that we can’t solve because we didn’t try to understand the science behind it, because we removed the part of our brain that drives progress. Stagnation is death. Stagnation also dooms us to what we currently have, which is shit. Whereas progress is always beneficial.

No it hasn’t. Hobbses theory of man has so far been correct.

Psychoanalaysis is pseudoscience. It’s a bunch of stuck ups claiming that if you agree with X philosophy it’s because of you as an individual. It’s incredibly idealist.

Attached: Idealism.jpeg (151x225, 10.21K)

Literal straws.

No one is saying you cannot be left wing if you're a manlet. Why would you want future humans to be manlets is the real issue here.

We want future humans to be gigachads, don't we?

Also, how is autistic a demographic? Drop the PC horseshit already.

Attached: chad.png (859x960, 289.86K)

Modern medicine has destroyed humanity, allowing genetically inferiors to reproduce and thus spread more gene defects. Most defective humans died off before having children so many genetic flaws and diseases were either self-limiting or disappeared entirely after a few generations.

What about the massive amount of inbreeding by royal families and rich populations through arranged marriages?

Those created genetic defects too.

Lol, eugenics was something invented by rich people to make failsons of the past their bitches. I guess white people are falling a part pretty bad to start falling for it again.

He was insulting Hitler you dolt, albeit in a fashion that seems childish and did a 180 and is now pro Eugenics and self fulfillment like Hitler was @119249

If you're sufficiently advanced, you could construct new people and engineer genes outright, rendering heredity pointless.

I don't see any value in breeding for high intelligence. Modern society should indicate that efforts to select for intelligence have been a dismal failure, when the so-called best and brightest stare at their navels or their dicks and prove themselves to be the worst failures who will just waste any intelligence that is bred into them anyway.

Because ayys use less resources. Pretty simple. We can get more done with our most productive resource (our brains) if we waste less food and water on the other fleshy stuff.

Attached: ayylmao.png (1600x1200, 1.89M)

lol

Don't you wanna be more efficient user?

WW3 didn't happen YET because a lot of reasons. Singling out one reason (MAD might be one) is simply naive. Check your causal fallacies.


I'm neither idealist nor materialist, I'm dialectic in motion. Transcend your monism, bro.

According to science, we have to lower our living standards today, at least in the Western sphere. You can measure this by ecological footprint.

In the neoliberal trash it goes. So dogmatic. Wow. And you call me idealist. Progress is not an absolute but always relative. This is why material stagnation and regression can be real human progress. I say this as a member of the Progressive International.

I would cite psychological studies but you wouldn't care to read them. As I'm a neuropsychologist in research, I can just say that disstress by conflicts releases cortisol hinders normal learning (not fear learning though), impairs self-regulation and together with testosterone boosts violent behavior. Moreover, constant disstress is related to psychopathologies since hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis cannot hold hyperactivity for long-term. Also, the genotype moderates also individual's stress response, so a society based on conflict is severly unjust on a genetic level. Eugenics can counteract here.

Although it's not a paradigm I con refer to, it has just recently developed from a pseudoscience to an actual empirical science.

I won't answer you anymore. People told me I wast to much time on dogmatic minds. They are probably right.

Food is only a tiny part of total resource consumption. Exercise is fun.

There was a massive tense half century long period between two superpowers. This standoff was even more intense than the imperial squandering of the late nineteenth century. Yet the Cold War never resulted in World War, but the squanferings did.

Brainlit, besides actual consumption can be left alone, as long as it becomes more efficient, and ecological problems are offset.

No if their is material stagnation and regression than the productive forces are reduced. Which prevents the antagonisms of class conflict from boiling up and resulting in the overthough of the current economic order. History is linear.


Yes, but it also motivates people to strive to become better than their peers. And through this striving and struggle, people improve themselves. You’ve also said nothing that would disprove Hobbs’s theory of man.

Attached: StagesOfHistoryDilecticalMaterialism.jpg (902x348, 32.42K)

there are nearly no working class jews though, those are found only in israhell and even then they are mixed with aravs

so tell me why objectively inferior people should live

aldous huxley has a solution

lmao, anything can be a spook under the right frame of reference. A down syndrome ruling class would impose down syndrome on everyone "elevating" the populace

I believe the genetic selection system, computer controlled mating selection, genetic screening and sterilisation should be fully funded indefinitely in order to become a tradition because the traditions tends to outlive the nations.

What the fuck is that thing

He look like he is on steroids.

A shoop

Attached: monster_Ive_found_on_asp.png (1080x1331, 378.29K)

no
still no

Weird how even after WW2 Marxists kept defending eugenics, and socdem Sweden only ended its native sterilization program in 1975, while the Church always opposed it

When are y'all changing your minds on abortion?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (760x1238, 180.39K)

We didn't progressives did. How come Christ Coms are opposed to it?

If you read the first lines you'll see Marxists also did, even if it's possible it wasn't so popular outside of Britain and it was the influence of the Fabians, but most political forces supported it, and were wrong

I mean, it's obviously morally wrong, no person has the right to decide whether another human should be killed or sterilized. Back then secular morality was different, but I'd probably still oppose it as a Catholic. Of course, some caths didn't listen and defended it like the rest of the world

Attached: soul.png (517x374, 205.76K)

Selective breeding.

Selecting genes for intelligence and empathy will further the leftist cause.

Shopping for a new aesthetic?

Pure spectacle. Stop watching porn.

They'll just end up being airheaded super models.

Reactionary and exploitative traits eradicated from the genepool, whereas ones selecting for class consciousness and solidarity are selected? Why not?

The first social relation is the one between parent and child. If this one is perfected, all other relations follow.

Attached: images (11)

There is no way to tell

It is a demographic, the greater mental illness demographic.

It's funny how leftists love to placate minorities, gays and women but as soon as spergs or schizos come up suddenly everyone becomes reactionary. I don't like Sartre very much but read this (he wrote the introduction)

archive.org/details/SPKTurnIllnessIntoAWeapon/page/n1

One of my all time favorite industrial bands wrote a socialist manifesto

Attached: 51g v1g6RkL._SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_ (1).jpg (209x293, 13.91K)

idk what you are talking about, anti-psychiatry is leftist

No. Since leftism is heavily in roots with humanism and socialism of course not the well being of other human beings is what satisfies us.

Attached: activist201small.png (217x426, 62.44K)

the fetus is not a child its just an egg and abortion will be practiced anyways illegal or not. Better have it legal so its clean. Abortions are not deseriable by the aborter but its a good option to have just in case. All of the aborters would have preferred not to have been fertilized but shit happened, and yet it can still be avoided due to this useful legal option that doesnt even really have an easy process so its no excuse for people not to use condoms or pills or regulate having sex when the egg is not there.

it's not as simple but yeah I understand the argument.

Right wingers are psychopaths.
While leftists are empaths.
Indeed.

The fetus is a fetus, not an egg, user. All scientists agree that the moment the 2 cells join it becomes life, the disagreement is where it becomes human
Roe vs Wade happened when there were basically no ultrasounds and we knew nothing about embryology, it was a political decision that had nothing to do with science. which then got justified with increasingly ridiculous theories, to the point that some ethicists are now defending it's even ok to kill newborns because they aren't self sustaining yet

And in Portugal, where I live, it is used as an excuse, because it costs 10€, only 1 in 5 people going through the procedure are having their first abortion

Scientifically, we can't yet prove that the fetus is already human life in the first stages, but the way things are going I'm sure someday we will

Attached: no fun allowed.png (1379x2031, 1.07M)

>and abortion will be practiced anyways illegal or not.
I can literally use the same excuse for rape or murder.

Attached: (u).png (916x910, 47.47K)

that fucking shit whatever it is needed legal anyway its useful otherwise is still practiced but in unclean conditions thats it.

no you cannot dont pivot you can punish the criminal's crime on the other conscious human being.

what is life deosn't matter since even when you fart you kill life. it's ok to destroy life so long as it's not complex advanced life. Kill bugs, kill rats, kill a fetus who cares you wont end them anyway.

so nobody should ever fuck before matrimony? pure incel ideology tbqh. people fuck and make mistakes or the condom breaks or the pill doesnt work, that mistake can be fixed post blow out, it can be fixed before the fetus is fertilized or even right after by removing the fetus that was going to bleed the fuck out and destroy itself if it wasnt fertilized anyway.

Literal baseless insult. Incel's are involuntary celibate, that means that even under a society that requires marriage before sex they wouldn't be able to get married. Incel does not mean "Angry asshurt man."
Just because your parents did doesn't mean everyone else's did.
Literally two different things.

So what if I were to kill mentally challenged people who cannot function. Would that be okay? I mean they are not complex life after all.

...

mentally challenged humans can function better than a lot of life forms. They are complex life. simple cells are not, you jack off daily that sperm is wasted and it is life but its uncomplex, bugs I also consider them uncomplex you can kill as many as you like you wont even be capable of making them extinct they are just an annoyance. After that life starts being complex a developed mind is complex.

I'm vegan myself I don't like the industrialization of the killing of animals. But if I find a roach in my room I'm killing it, if me and my partner find a fertilized fetus inside her that was pure mistake we are stopping its process, it's not a human ego it's not even on the level of a bird's ego it's irrelevant.


incel

Epic and hilarious, I sure got BTFO Trolled awesome style. How will I literally ever recover. I may as well just kill myself now because my entire characters been crushed.
Not everyone does the same things as you and jacks off daily.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recently_extinct_insects
Nice spook, but I live in Jew York, cockroaches are unavoidable, but I co exist with them by cleaning my house, eating only in the dining room and not the bed room so they don't go anywhere else for food, and properly store my food in double bags or the fridge so they don't eat it.
Killing cockroaches is a waste of time and effort just because of "Muh property" and social stigma telling you you should kill them without a second thought.
This is where a core tenant on crime for anarchism comes from, most crime can be avoided under the right social conditions.
When you tell me you want abortion to cum inside your girlfriend then get off scott free without consequences you're telling me you hold no importance to sex and just want to stimulate your dopamine senses. You're literally acting the same way a uncomplex lifeform does and are relying on a institution to bail you out.

Attached: roger sigh.png (721x366, 193.11K)