Do you look up to anyone in tech?

I mean, Shockley got cucked by Noyce, so I think I'll keep on believing as I already do

no because I am not a soyboy

People who live in poverty actually have more kids than people who are affluent and well-educated. Welfare is functionally a eugenics program to limit the number of niglets that get conceived. This is why you need to support the expansion of welfare and student aid programs: so black women will stop having kids because they're too busy with school.

I'm actually pretty far to the left, and think that racial supremacism is ridiculous superstition, but I've always favored the idea of offering cash bounties (in the range of hundreds or thousands of dollars per head to Americans) for voluntary implantation of IUDs or surgical sterilization.

I have always found it strange that Eugenics has been so vehemently opposed by both the American left and right.

Attached: Harald-Damsleth-Med-Nordmenn-for-Norge-Medium.jpg (1200x1709 1.56 MB, 595.78K)

*in recent years I should add. I know that it was not so controversial 100 years ago.

My main support of such policies is simply to accelerate existing trends toward depopulation to stable, sustainable levels. Tighter labor market, better for the environment, less unwanted children in broken families that will grow up as scum.

Eugenics (even voluntary eugenics beyond the most severe congenital defects) is a bad idea not because of whether it's effective, but because of whether the traits being selected for are actually desirable, as our understanding of most of them ("crystallized intelligence", for instance) is not even close to scientifically rigorous. Look at the heuristics typical consumers use to select computers, phones, software, websites, and other simple commodity goods, and apply that to genetics. Now look at the modern "furry/fat/tranny/sperg/fag/deaf/amputee/etc pride" movements (including "white" pride, which has expanded to encompass groups like the Germans, Slavs, English, Celts, etc. who were all attempting to genocide each other on the grounds of "racial inferiority" less than a couple centuries ago), maybe read some modern "transhumanist/post-singularity" utopian SF about genetic engineering.

Think about what the human race would look like after a few rounds of that.

Attached: seaweed_reference_sheet_by_fuzzymaro-dbcs27d.png (1500x1092, 1.92M)

no, it's not.

It's simply because it has connotation with Nazies if it wasn't connoted with it there would be a lot less people opposed to it.
This is what I hate with normies, because muh ebil nazies used some ideas of Eugenics (and I agree there was some inhuman ones) that it's mandatory evil, fortunately not everyone in the gov is a nigger about things like that otherwise we wouldn't have landed on the moon or developed metric tons of technology.

I think the same.
True but some of them are indeed more or less known for example we know nowadays via statistics that when one of your parent/ancestors had cancer or some mental illness that you have X probability do develop it or transmit it to your offspring of course it's a lot more complicated than that but it's feasible.
It seems that you consider eugenics like if all countries would go in the same direction, or am I wrong ?
A worldwide scale of unknown eugenics is suicide like a lot of worldwide experiment.
A small region size or city sized experiment would be less destructive (if it is destructive).

Do some research on the matter, there's more depth to it.