Serious Eugenics - a question about a counter-argument

[Lebensmüder]

Eugenics are practicably impossible; but the following counter-argument was never understood by me: "Good/Bad traits are always dependent on the social context and in a few years the social context could be something completely different." Yes, societies/views change with time, but there are objectively bad traits for individuals/societies if you define "good" as something beneficial and "bad" as something detrimental/deleterious for the individual/society - there a certain traits that were and always will be advantageous.

Intelligence for example. Even in the beginning of humanity (as we know it) intelligence was a valuable trait; humanity itself was never defined by raw physical strength, but also by its mental capacities: Intelligence allowed people to make preparations for future events (e.g. planning for winter), gave them the mental flexibility to escape a given situation and find new/creative solutions. In today's society people are even more dependent on intelligence, because physical strength isn't needed for most jobs and in the future with automization there will be even less jobs that require physical effort. Intelligence is and always will be a trait that benefits individuals/societies - if you don't have the proper intelligence you died thousands of years ago and nowadays you are stuck with dead-end-jobs noone else wants to do. For an individual it's an absolute catastrophe to see that you are unable to compete with peers which leads to feelings of inadequacy/inferiority and to (understandable) envy/hatred towards the gifted, which can prove to be detrimental to a society when said individual is driven to crime/resignation in the face of such a lack of perspectives.

Hereditary diseases are another example. Hereditary diseases are detrimental for the life quality of an individual; there is absolute no scenario I can think of where a disability of the mind/body could ever be an advantage for a certain person, most people suffering from that would probably give everything to live a normal life. SCD is one of the only exceptions because being heterozygous for SCD increases your resistance towards Malaria, but otherwise hereditary diseases are only a catastrophe for an individual and bring nothing more than suffering/pain.

Although the conclusions of eugenics are often false and the method faces practical limitations, the counter-argument that there are no good/bad traits is absolute bullshit in my eyes because there are traits that are always associated with a significantly higher/lower life-quality for an individual or a society. Yes, it's impossible to get rid of bad traits or increase the frequency of better traits within a predictable timespan but there are bad/good traits - denying that is extreme bullshit in my eyes. What would you say?

 

[Deleted member 26140]

Time to bump this corpse of a thread

 

[Blackcel rigth wing]

It’s such a shame threads like this never get any replies, but you’re race baiting/race war threads and water is wet threads get all the attention.

That aside great thread brocel.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

What they say is only partially true. For example, if you have a low metabolism, you would say that your shit genetics made you fat while people with high metabolism are just born skinny. But in the context of ancient day before farming, people with high metabolism are much more likely to die because they can't go too long without food, as their body burns it up fast.

And low IQ women breed way more than high IQ women, and dumb chads don't bother using condoms and have many kids compared to smart chads.
Society will take care of stupid people who make bad decisions.
Saying IQ is important now is cope tbh.