Discussion The case for eugenics is obvious

[Homegrownman326]

I can't understand how people hate eugenics so much. In a society where eugenics exists, suffering will be mitigated to a very high extent. Lifespans could be made longer, genetic diseases eliminated, incels (who normies loathe so much) can also be eliminated as everyone can be chad, mental illnesses can be eliminated, we can make sure everyone is high IQ, tall, healthy, good looking, the dickpill could be solved, the list goes on. How can people be against such a world? We would still have to screen fetuses for negative mutations to prevent them, but that's doable. Everyone agrees that people should be judged for what they do, not what they look like. We know the opposite is the case today, to the dismay of many. Imagine a world where it does come down to merit and action, rather than the variables that are out of your control.

 

[Clavicus Vile]

Been asking them this for years and they still can’t give me a logical answer.

 

[Homegrownman326]

"Standards will increase if everyone looks like Chad". This is a valid argument, and that is indeed a problem. I think if the general populous exists in a certain looks threshold, it wouldn't really matter all that much. If one guy is two inches taller, I don't think we'll get the level of hypergamy that exists today.

 

[Cryotron]

you would have to sterilize majority of people for that, women especially since ugly women can easily reproduce unlike ugly men.

 

[Homegrownman326]

you would have to sterilize majority of people for that, women especially since ugly women can easily reproduce unlike ugly men.

So? The end most certainly justifies the means. I cannot morally justify allowing ugly people to be born

 

[LonerLothario]

as rehab said, if everyone is a chad then no one is

 

[InvoluntaryChigga]

"Standards will increase if everyone looks like Chad". This is a valid argument, and that is indeed a problem. I think if the general populous exists in a certain looks threshold, it wouldn't really matter all that much. If one guy is two inches taller, I don't think we'll get the level of hypergamy that exists today.

With eugenics you get northern Europe, and without it you get the entire continent of South Asia. Case in point.

 

[DeathSigil]

as rehab said, if everyone is a chad then no one is

 

[LastGerman]

I can't understand how people hate eugenics so much. In a society where eugenics exists, suffering will be mitigated to a very high extent. Lifespans could be made longer, genetic diseases eliminated, incels (who normies loathe so much) can also be eliminated as everyone can be chad, mental illnesses can be eliminated, we can make sure everyone is high IQ, tall, healthy, good looking, the dickpill could be solved, the list goes on. How can people be against such a world? We would still have to screen fetuses for negative mutations to prevent them, but that's doable. Everyone agrees that people should be judged for what they do, not what they look like. We know the opposite is the case today, to the dismay of many. Imagine a world where it does come down to merit and action, rather than the variables that are out of your control.

Indeed.

the dickpill could be solved

@Darth Aquarius @Yabadadabadoo @Spooky_Heejin

 

[Homegrownman326]

as rehab said, if everyone is a chad then no one is

I addressed that, and it's a more nuanced question. Women's attraction is based on a man being of higher value than her. If all mate options are of ideal genetic quality, so that there's no extreme outlier that would make everyone chad from a genetic standpoint. In this hypothetical world, would women adapt to it and seek even better genes? But since everyone would be within a certain threshold, there would be no outliers, so that isn't possible. I think Chad would become more about meritocracy, social proof, status, etc, in this new world, so Chad would exist still, but it would be based on factors inside a man's control. In this hypothetical world, bad gene mutations would be filtered out or prevented prior to birth, so no birth defects and no unforeseen mutations. There would also be no environmental pressure, ideally, that would cause competition and adaptation.

 

[To koniec]

you would have to sterilize majority of people for that, women especially since ugly women can easily reproduce unlike ugly men.

 

[To koniec]

With eugenics you get northern Europe, and without it you get the entire continent of South Asia. Case in point.

More like slaves to their own geography, Nordids are just caucasoids aclimated to harsh conditions while Indids are just Medditareans adapted to being in tropical climate

 

[Beck]

i love it

yet a part of me feels foids are still going to find a way to marginalize men and even in an all chad world we will have some form of incels

but i would take the chance as with the reproduction of all chad men we could see an improvement to the foid mind if we breed the right ones

 

[spongysleight]

I addressed that, and it's a more nuanced question. Women's attraction is based on a man being of higher value than her. If all mate options are of ideal genetic quality, so that there's no extreme outlier that would make everyone chad from a genetic standpoint. In this hypothetical world, would women adapt to it and seek even better genes? But since everyone would be within a certain threshold, there would be no outliers, so that isn't possible. I think Chad would become more about meritocracy, social proof, status, etc, in this new world, so Chad would exist still, but it would be based on factors inside a man's control. In this hypothetical world, bad gene mutations would be filtered out or prevented prior to birth, so no birth defects and no unforeseen mutations. There would also be no environmental pressure, ideally, that would cause competition and adaptation.

Wrong, according to our current standards there will be no outliers. But once everyone is brought closer to the norm, another new standard will be more heavily selected for to create discrepancies again, the goalpost will be moved and the hierarchy will re-establish. Women will naturally seek the best males and will find ways to tell them apart

 

[LonelyATM]

America should have let Austrian mustache man destroy Russia.

 

[Jimb0]

same reason why there being so many orphans and homeless children, rich people have kids instead of adopting, we're a sad, selfish lot

 

[InvoluntaryChigga]

More like slaves to their own geography, Nordids are just caucasoids aclimated to harsh conditions while Indids are just Medditareans adapted to being in tropical climate

I doubt that they still have any significant caucasoid admixture left

 

[To koniec]

I doubt that they still have any significant caucasoid admixture left

North Indid/Gracile Indid are caucaoids phenos

 

[InvoluntaryChigga]

North Indid/Gracile Indid are caucaoids phenos

Yea ik, i played raceguesser for a bit. Im just saying that by now, they probably have significant dravidian admixture

 

[Izayacel]

you would have to sterilize majority of people for that, women especially since ugly women can easily reproduce unlike ugly men.

 

[autistic.goblin]

Eugenics could save the whole world from its current state, not even joking

 

[LonerLothario]

I addressed that, and it's a more nuanced question. Women's attraction is based on a man being of higher value than her. If all mate options are of ideal genetic quality, so that there's no extreme outlier that would make everyone chad from a genetic standpoint. In this hypothetical world, would women adapt to it and seek even better genes? But since everyone would be within a certain threshold, there would be no outliers, so that isn't possible. I think Chad would become more about meritocracy, social proof, status, etc, in this new world, so Chad would exist still, but it would be based on factors inside a man's control. In this hypothetical world, bad gene mutations would be filtered out or prevented prior to birth, so no birth defects and no unforeseen mutations. There would also be no environmental pressure, ideally, that would cause competition and adaptation.

in a world like that, it would be all about personality unironically

 

[Retraux]

Eugenics is scientifically, morally, and spiritually sound. It's only opposed because it violates some of the fundamental tenets of the cult of liberalism that rules the west.

 

[I want to believe]

All men should reproduce, but only beautiful and tall foids should be allowed to have kids. Also foids should have no rights.

 

[depression]

There always needs to be a person(s) who gets put down

 

[Scrangillious Q.]

I think the real solution is changing our whole perspective of this world and loving and respecting people no matter their appearance.

This first option is impossible and will never happen.

The second solution is a big rock falling on Earth and obliterating everything, which is more possible than the first option.

 

[Homegrownman326]

Wrong, according to our current standards there will be no outliers. But once everyone is brought closer to the norm, another new standard will be more heavily selected for to create discrepancies again, the goalpost will be moved and the hierarchy will re-establish. Women will naturally seek the best males and will find ways to tell them apart

I'm talking about radical and immediate standardization of humans, which also prevents negative mutations.

 

[Homegrownman326]

There always needs to be a person(s) who gets put down

Yeah, and in this new world, it will be based on merit and action, not genetics and looks.

 

[Homegrownman326]

Wrong, according to our current standards there will be no outliers. But once everyone is brought closer to the norm, another new standard will be more heavily selected for to create discrepancies again, the goalpost will be moved and the hierarchy will re-establish. Women will naturally seek the best males and will find ways to tell them apart

I'm not arguing for creating normies, I'm arguing for creating chads.

 

[Homegrownman326]

as rehab said, if everyone is a chad then no one is

That's the point: to remove Chad from existence by making everyone Chad, then people will be forced to judge people on merit, personality, etc. The factors that we can control, not the ones we can't.

 

[Emba]

I'm good with it

 

[DeathSigil]

I agree. If this was put in place, I'd never be born, and women wouldn't have to deal with my existence. Isn't that what women want? Then why don't they agree?

 

[Homegrownman326]

I agree. If this was put in place, I'd never be born, and women wouldn't have to deal with my existence. Isn't that what women want? Then why don't they agree?

"Eugenics is literally the Holocaust and KKK". That's why they don't agree. Eugenics is all based on the environment. A dark complexion is the most advantageous in regions near the equator. A whiter one, the farther from it. Jews are inherently a dysgenic race, so they will have to be exterminated, much like Indians. They can kick and scream all they want, but it's the truth. "But what about inbred white hillbillies", they should be exterminated as well, just like inbred Pakistanis or Arabs (Not all Arabs just inbred ones).

 

[The Abyss]

They don't want it as with no untermensch to punch down on they become the lowest rung.

 

[four1298]

Why should I care if future generations will suffer less because of eugenics? I won't be alive then and if eugenicists succeed, I won't have any children who will be able to enjoy the benefits of eugenics. I have no stake in the future. We already live in a eugenic society where genetically inferior men, incels, can't reproduce. By supporting eugenics, you think inceldom is good. Even if eugenics results in less suffering, there will be suffering and loss of enjoyment because people won't be able to do what they want to do which is reproduce and because they will be euthanized. Also, it's just a false theory that there will be less suffering because of eugenics because most people today are glad to be alive. People are already happy. If they aren't happy, it's because people aren't reproducing enough. Reproduction increases happiness of the parents (and the children because they want siblings).

 

[ApocalypticKrieg666]

People only dislike it because it's tangentially related to national socialism which is the pariah ideology of the modern world. Most people who aren't religious today believe in some form of secular humanism which eugenics is completely compatible with

 

[erenyeager]

I can't understand how people hate eugenics so much. In a society where eugenics exists, suffering will be mitigated to a very high extent. Lifespans could be made longer, genetic diseases eliminated, incels (who normies loathe so much) can also be eliminated as everyone can be chad, mental illnesses can be eliminated, we can make sure everyone is high IQ, tall, healthy, good looking, the dickpill could be solved, the list goes on. How can people be against such a world? We would still have to screen fetuses for negative mutations to prevent them, but that's doable. Everyone agrees that people should be judged for what they do, not what they look like. We know the opposite is the case today, to the dismay of many. Imagine a world where it does come down to merit and action, rather than the variables that are out of your control.

Short men shouldn’t be extinct. Loud niggers who ruin society however

 

[Homegrownman326]

Why should I care if future generations will suffer less because of eugenics? I won't be alive then and if eugenicists succeed, I won't have any children who will be able to enjoy the benefits of eugenics. I have no stake in the future. We already live in a eugenic society where genetically inferior men, incels, can't reproduce. By supporting eugenics, you think inceldom is good. Even if eugenics results in less suffering, there will be suffering and loss of enjoyment because people won't be able to do what they want to do which is reproduce and because they will be euthanized. Also, it's just a false theory that there will be less suffering because of eugenics because most people today are glad to be alive. People are already happy. If they aren't happy, it's because people aren't reproducing enough. Reproduction increases happiness of the parents (and the children because they want siblings).

You cared enough to comment. Some of us don't want the mistake that is human life to induce the immense amount of suffering we've incurred. It's also a thought experience regarding utopianism. It's a purely philosophical, scientific, and moral pursuit that you don't have to care about. Your offspring could most certainly partake in the eugenics, as well as you can design them from the ground up to the person you've dreamed of.

 

[Homegrownman326]

Short men shouldn’t be extinct. Loud niggers who ruin society however

I'm a firm proponent of total kike death, total nigger death, and total jeet death. On the topic of short men, foids will make them extinct whether you like it or not.

 

[spongysleight]

I'm not arguing for creating normies, I'm arguing for creating chads.

That's the point: to remove Chad from existence by making everyone Chad, then people will be forced to judge people on merit, personality, etc. The factors that we can control, not the ones we can't.

Chads are only a concept that exists as something higher than others. Our current definition (facial symmetry, hunter eyes etc) won't describe the chads of the future you are talking about, but the goalpost will just be moved further to only include 1-5% of males to be considered chad.

Chad will never be removed from existence so long as humans are visual creatures.

You could say that society is already moving in that direction (limb lengthening, undetectable plastic surgery, hair transplant) but the standards of women will forever increase as well.

Humans of the past were a lot more shitty looking than humans now (don't go dragging out pictures of all the square jawed men during the industrial revolution or some shit) with medical intervention and improved sanitation and of course sexual selection, but yet we still have the looks hierarchy

 

[PillarofReality]

I got called a "cuck" for preaching eugenics.

 

[Runt171]

you would have to sterilize majority of people for that, women especially since ugly women can easily reproduce unlike ugly men.

Thats A small price to pay to better society as a whole

Of course they are too selfish to do that though and they want to keep having subhuman kids and repeating the cycle because their programming tells them to