I actually don’t know how it can be applied by state power without going in a way that wouldn’t be bizarre. I do think it can be applied to a degree culturally, social practices, or economically.
1 Like
It probably could not. But it would be only efficient option.
I actually claim that these methods are partly in use already, but they’re not working of course.
I see the reverse. In the US we annually spend billions of dollars per year from the federal budget on single mothers and their offspring, with much of such happening from humping criminals.
At a certain age 18–21 require an IQ and Big Five personality test. Those who score below a threshold can still have children, but they are permanently ineligible for public benefits such as free healthcare and child support. However, if they agree to sterilization they will have access to public benefits.
Poor and low-IQ individuals have more children without thinking twice largely because govt. support and taxpayer dollars subsidize it. This policy would remove that.
1 Like
This is a very good idea and a post congruent with my previous one above.
What about disease? Can we add on disease? Extensive genetic testing and clinical evaluation for everyone
I’m very in favor of something like this
But I’d go further and fine those who willingly bring people into this world who will suffer
Say you have a kid with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia who is otherwise intelligent and in good spirits
That child will die at 18-25 irregardless of what they do. Is that fair?
I think this would reduce the population by around 30% at the end of the day
However I do think mass sterilization might make swathes of the population more promiscuous. To some it could even be seen as a badge of honor to fuck around as much as they want
The pill CAN fail, condoms can fail
Medicsl sterilization is unlikely to fail
Ultimately my preference is for gene editing tech to advance to a point where we can edit pathological genetic mutations out completely.
The world had natural eugenic breeding before modern medicine and social programs.
3 Likes
Just eliminate individual(as in, I’m not saying public roads and libraries have to be eliminated for this to work) public benefits. But a functional society definitely shouldn’t be paying people to reproduce.
Yes, before advanced societies. Ancient Greece did it culturally and physically, with one way being the exhortation of women to select men because of genes and virtue versus money.
Implementing some social programs are dysgenic, so we can discontinue them.
The “deep state,” the intruder upon people’s private lives started by social workers (feminists) and state functionaries booting lower-income men from their homes and subsidizing their wives and children. Many of these women then chose men who they actually wanted to screw–low lives, deadbeats, criminals, not responsible bus drivers or factory workers–and gave birth to fatherless children, which lead to an outrageous increase in criminality. The prison population for blacks and whites doubled in only one decade, 1985 to 1995.
Housing projects and lower middle class areas (me being from such an area) are filled with social deviants and criminals because of fatherlessness. And no, not all such people are from “ghettoes,” because the white middle class produces such people because of incentivized divorce.
“We can stop this.”
“No, we can’t.”
“Why?”
“Because that would be mean.”
I think the problem with this line of thinking is determining thresholds.
1 Like
And that statistics are meaningless to the individual.
3 Likes
People are all about fucking the other guy until its their turn to bend over.
Like, if people disagree with policy and overreach and so many other government actions, how are they gonna feel when the government tells them they’re out of the gene pool?
I don’t think it would be too good.
4 Likes
Are these places private or paid for by the state? Does insurance cover addiction services?
Ive had family members and acquaintances that were addicts but everyone just let them be. And in all the cases i havevfirst hand experience with they were either functional or fucked their lives up to where they did snap out of it without formal help, if that makes sense.
Exactly. @RT_Nomad already made the point that evolution and natural selection already exists in a better system than we can artificially create.
I don’t want my kids to live in a future where the gene pool is decided by Elon Musk’s high-tech polygamy.
2 Likes
If I had multiple billions and could built a spacious family estate I’d be all for it.
1 Like
A whole lot of them do to varying degrees.
1 Like
I’d be fine with it. Genuinely. Until gene editing tech comes out I only think it’s fair
I’m not thinking about me, I’m thinking about the kid of mine that would live out a lifetime of pain and suffering.
There are bad genes for everything in my family. Not one but two genetic diseases, poor mental health, cancer etc… just best to let others reproduce who have better genes as my kid would be a ticking timebomb
I want to optimize the next generations potential even if that means I don’t get to be a part of raising that future generation. I’d be open to adoption but I believe every cent I have is likely going towards treating my health issues for the foreseeable future… probably forever
Why would I put that on my child?
Let’s say we find a gene for bipolar/schizophrenia. This runs rampant in some families… it’s clearly genetic. The serial killer Albert Fish (not safe for life… don’t look him up)
EVERY SINGLE MEMBER on one side of his immediate and extended family had MAJOR psychiatric issues
I understand this is a slippery slope. My argument is less “people should be banned from the gene pool” and more “we should edit these genes out of the gene pool”
I’m not in favor of say… breeding out short stature (dwarfism is a different story). Society selectively breeds out some undesirable characteristics by default but modern society it also rewards certain characteristics that are by and large pathological.
We don’t have enough data, but there is a growing body of evidence suggesting psychopathic behaviour may to some extent be influenced by singular groups of genes
If this can ultimately be proven are we not better off for screening those embryos and editing those genes out? Provided there are no downstream consequences it might ultimately reduce rates of violent crime
I do believe violent tendencies and psychopathic tendencies are also partially mediated by abnormal in utero development and neglectful upbringing…. But not everyone with a neglectful upbringing winds up a sociopath, narcissist or psychopath so what gives?
Person A and person B could be exposed to the same abuse… person A becomes a sadistic, blood hungry individual and person B is a decent individual albeit with ptsd. There must be some degree of genetic predisposition in these cases.
We don’t know nearly enough about genetics but when we do I’d like society to utilize that knowledge to push towards creating a more harmonious, peaceful society hopefully free of inheritable disease. There are genes associated with alcoholism… why wouldn’t we want to edit the alcoholic gene(s) out? You’ll still have alcoholism, but less of it!
I don’t mind editing genetic material to make it so you are immune to certain blood bourne pathogens either
I wouldn’t expect people to all agree. We all have our reasons. Some good, some bad, some from experience, some from observation.
1 Like
I meant to reply to your original post but got busy. I would have been a dissenting opinion in the same questioning way @SkyzykS is.
-
That’s waaay too much power for gov’t. This could very quickly turn to a 2nd amendment convo for me. And forget AR-15s, let’s start talking militias, tanks, bombers et cetera.
-
On the topic itself, how do you define poor genes? Everybody dies some day. Usually from a heart complication or cancer - which you directly mention. I don’t think anyone can point to a family history devoid of either.
Like what, and where is the line? Let’s tackle mental health. Is clinical depression a no-go, but anxiety ok? Or is anxiety a no-go as well?
I’ve never understood the argument of foregoing life because there may be struggle, but usually see this applied in the context of abortion; “life will probably be hard so just kill it”. I’m sure we’ve all been through shit and had ups and downs. Was none of it worth the other?
I’ve personally had cancer. Skin cancer but specifically squamous (a less represented type than melanoma or basal that does metastasize like melanoma). By the time it was found out they removed the lesion and had to do a few rounds of chemo. For the record it’s been long enough I’m in the clear and life is fine.
Should I have forgone becoming a father considering? This occurred prior. I don’t think so. The struggles my daughter is currently encountering for what it’s worth are learning how to not act spoiled while being thoroughly spoiled if I’m being honest. I expect her to face challenges too, however. It’s part of life.
My mother in law is bipolar, which has led to some interesting and tense scenarios, however she ultimately raised two well adjusted children who now have families and subjectively happy lives of their own. And she herself has lived a full life.
Those genes exist and will probably surface somewhere in the line, but should I really go back and snuff my daughter’s existence considering? Deny my wife motherhood? I don’t think so. And how far back to I go? Do we assess recessive genes and an algorithm of potential complications?
I think everyone wants to optimize but I don’t think we need to recreate humanity to do it. To @RT_Nomads point earlier, we already live above nature. 100 years ago more than half of us on this board wouldn’t have made it out of infancy. Why not lean in to traditional medicine and continue developing methods of complimenting vs changing who we are?
And again, where are the lines and who defines them? Especially if govt is going to oversee. That’s a big genie bottle to open.
1 Like