The SearchVoat Forum

Tallest_Skil wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:50 am

TheRealSkeptic5000 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:32 am How would eugenics be, in your view?

Objectively positive genetic traits can be scientifically quantified and discovered in people. The same goes for negative traits. A person’s genome can be sequenced to give them a strong impression of what traits they’ll pass on to their kids depending on the woman they marry. These people can, similarly, be told, “if you have kids, they’ll have a debilitating illness. You’ll be bringing pain unto them their entire lives.” And then the government wouldn’t give assistance thereto, because it’s no one else’s responsibility to pay for a preventable problem.

What if these people decide to still have children? I think this is a dangerous path which can lead to "trust the experts", "settled science", atrocities and irreversible changes. There is already the process natural seletion to "enforce" eugenics, and people tend to be averse to suffering. The best way to "control population" is to cut welfare, cut taxes, stop spending millions in "humanitarian aid" (which is actually a covert way of sending money to politicians in other countries for support). When people are held accountable for their own choices, when they know that the gubmint won't be there to rescue them from themselves, that will have an impact in society. You'll see a trend of responsibility. Less taxes mean more money in your pocket, which can be spent on condoms, contraceptives, education, etc. as well as having more money to support children; perhaps solving the birthrate crisis.

Who objectively decides positive genetic traits? The Rockefeller Foundation? (tongue in cheek)

Don't worry about controlling genetic traits. We're being swamped by south of the border genes that will go on to replace native born genes (75,000 illegals caught at the Mexican border last month, most of them catch and release)

HennyPenny wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:22 am Who objectively decides positive genetic traits? The Rockefeller Foundation? (tongue in cheek)

Don't worry about controlling genetic traits. We're being swamped by south of the border genes that will go on to replace native born genes (75,000 illegals caught at the Mexican border last month, most of them catch and release)

Soros told me that black skin is a "superior" gene because it makes you resistant to the sun!!! Engineer your kids to be black or you're a white supremacist!! Haha white skin is bad !!!

TheRealSkeptic5000 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 9:01 pmWhat if these people decide to still have children?

Then they still have children. The state just doesn’t support their efforts. How the fuck are you still supporting dysgenic efforts?

There is already the process natural seletion to "enforce" eugenics

No. There isn’t. The state has replaced that.

The best way to "control population" is to cut welfare, cut taxes, stop spending millions in "humanitarian aid"

Exactly. Then the undesirables won’t be able to procreate, whereas the system currently exists to ensure they do.

HennyPenny wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:22 amWho objectively decides positive genetic traits?

No one. That’s not how the word ‘objectively’ works.

Well, we can agree on that one. It's not about "undesirables" or wiping out populations, it's about not giving infinite money to people who will misuse it thus cancelling personal responsibility and creating more ignorant slaves who depend on welfare. No welfare, no aid. Keep it up for ten years and you'll see how people change their behavior by themselves.

On the other hand, the line that separates the good from the bad genes is very blurry, and genes are too complex to determine which ones are 100% harmless and positive.