/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Is there some middle ground between genetic health improving or degrading over time?

>>465117
No eugenics is fundamentally unscientific bullshit, even if you remove all the historic fascistic crap.
There is no scientific basis for the concept of "a better organism"
Science can only describe how things work and make predictive models.
For example if you look at an organism and consider it's ability to survive, than cockroaches are a better design than humans. Eugenics has to be binned, it's going to produce stupid results no matter how you string it.

>eugenics is nothing more than favoring certain biological characteristics over others
What you are proposing sounds like political interference into medical treatments.
Just don't, leave the medical decisions to doctors and the people they treat, and stay out of it.

>couldn't this be used to improve our species?
Not really, how do you know which direction is up ?
You'll get a bunch of idealists with conflicting visions for what human biology should be, fighting against each other with really advanced bio-tech. Again it will lead to stupid results.

>Couldn't dozens if not hundreds of genetic diseases be exterminated?
Genetic diseases are very rare, but yes that can be done, however public health will only improve a little bit at the margins, don't expect this to have any effect on society.

>Couldn't we design children
No human biology is to complicated to make good enough predictions.
Keep in mind that you are not only looking at genetics, you are looking at genetics within an environment.
In order to design a human you have to know what it's environment is going to be, because the same genetic blueprint is going to produce radically different people depending on the environment they end up in. This is very far beyond our abilities. Perhaps harder than other scifi stuff like faster than light travel.

There is a very important point.
You can edit genetics in ways that it only affects the one organism that you are applying a medical procedure to and any changes you make die off with the one specimen you tinkered with. That's what you might want to consider. There also is the possibility that you make changes that can be passed down to new generations, and thus making heritable changes. There is strong statistical evidence that suggests making heritable changes is the path towards making a species infertile. My recommendation is to ban heritable genetic manipulation, and enforce it vigorously.

>who grow up to be healthier, stronger and more intelligent?
It might be important to know that you can edit your genes at any time in live, you don't have to do this before you are born. You can also reverse genetic changes, up to a point.

There is a reasonably good chance that genetic medicine will lead to a great reduction in per-person health care costs, and result in significant societal improvement in health. I would support genetic medicine, but you can only apply it if somebody is sick and it is demonstrable that altering their genes leads to better health outcomes, in the same way that giving people medicine is tested against improved health outcomes. And like before these genetic changes should not be applied to the heritable track. So that you are only applying a medical treatment to a single patient and not fuck with future generations.

We don't know what makes people intelligent, genetically, there still are a lot of low hanging fruits in the realm of environmental improvements.
ensuring access to nutritious food
living within low-stress life-circumstances and having beneficial mental stimulation.
Ending economic precarity will lead to a massive increase in cognitive abilities within society.

>I believe that eventually it is inevitable that genetic modification of embryos will become commonplace, and therefore it is important that the idea of ​​public eugenics be promoted, otherwise only people with enough money to pay for these programs could access to them, and that would eventually lead to a much more evident caste system than the current one, where the rich are practically supermen with advantages that allow them to dominate the labor and scientific market while the poorest classes would be relegated to occupying a position increasingly irrelevant in society.

This is a little bit idealist, ruling classes are not better than the classes they subjugate. It's unlikely that they would be able to make them self's into Ubermenschen. It's likely that they will just replicate inbreeding problems that existed with feudal ruling circles. Because if they settle on some kind of metric for Uber-genes, and they all get those Uber-genes, making it a biological cast-differentiator, that means that objectively they make them selves more genetically similar. If those Uber-genes have a critical flaw, then it becomes just a very elaborate way to commit group-suicide. But even if the Uber-genes are good quality, they still make them selves into partial clones that will be targeted by viruses bacteria and who know what else and eventually the Ubermenschen will just keel over because they became food for some micro-critter that specialized on eating Ubermenshen. We're just no where near the level where we can fuck with natur an get away with it.

It's risky fucking around with genetics while still living in class society, because all ruling classes tend to screw with the perception of reality and if those distortions seep into the sciences, shit can break badly, and the more advanced the technology the worse the breakage is going to be.

One thing you should also consider is inverting the premise.
Instead of changing people, you change their environment.
You could try to read human genes and figure out what the optimal environment for those genes would be.
That's probably less complicated and would lead to more immediately achievable improvements.

>>465117
I have no opinion on eugenics as a broad concept, only on specific applications. Tell me what specifically what would be changed and who gets to decide and I might have more to say.

There is no doubt in my mind that, should humanity dodge climate destruction and nuclear annihilation, it will some day begin modifying its own germ-line genome with tools like CRISPR. Long and important ethical debates set aside, it's simply an inevitability. The question is this: will it be used to further entrench class society or even morph into a nightmarish genetic caste system, or will it be used in an egalitarian society for the benefit of all?

>>465133
>There is strong statistical evidence that suggests making heritable changes is the path towards making a species infertile.
Eh? What is this evidence you're alluding to? Keep in mind Stargate SG-1 was just a television show.

>>465162
Genetically modified plants and lab-mice have shown declining fertility over several consecutive generations of modifications.

>>465163
That's already happening in human populations, though the cause is uncertain. Likely environmental pollution and muhfeminism

>>465161
Muh egalitarian utopia

>>465165
>That's already happening in human populations
I think that the current demographic downturn is most likely caused by high rates of exploitation under neo-liberal capitalism. Pollution probably is playing a role as well. I don't really know enough about bio-chemistry to judge whether the stuff like micro-plastics has a big effect or not.
>muhfeminism
The original version of feminism was not against procreation at all, the Malthusian streak is pretty bourgeois. It's kinda sad that feminism went to shit.

If you start doing genetic manipulation on humans you better limit the effects to individual patients and stay away from making heritable changes for at least a few centuries until the technology is fully understood and matured.

Most people have strange views about genetics. Many think their genes are some kind of essence of their being, and altering it is sacrilege while others think they can get less extreme versions of comic-book superhero powers. Maybe the most annoying crowd are those that try to project their political understanding onto genes, as if evolution would give a shit about your politics that exist at some given point in time.

In reality you'll go to the doctor who does a genetic workup and then proposes a few-minor tweeks that just reduces risks for various diseases. Maybe astronauts get genetic treatments for resiliency against radiation from space, the degenerative effects of zero gravity, or something that makes human bodies able to tolerate cold sleep.

>>465167
You are such a faggot. There are people in this world far more impoverished than your average incel neet. They have plenty of kids.. Leave your basement.

It took exactly 5 seconds for me to find a study on the link between microplastics and fertility problems btw

>>465168
<Suggest capitalist exploitation is causing demographic decline
>get personal attacks
Interesting.

>a study on microplastics
Sure but do you actually understood any of it ?

There can be multiple causes for a phenomenon. Micro-plastics could be an additional factor to Neo-liberal-demographics.

>>465169
>Capitalism has existed for 400 odd years
>Most of the time, the population was exploding
>Recent trend must be the result of capitalism

I'm not saying there isn't a social-economoc component. However, there is a certain intellectual poverty in a) believing that capitalism is a uniform system which hasn't already been superceded - something noted even 100 years ago by Lenin, and b) thinking that everything bad in the world is the fault of political economy.

>>465163
Source? There are practically a billion different ways to do genetic modification in a single organism you know. This kind of extremely broad generalization is extremely inappropriate.

Eugenics isn't a policy, it's a total coup. No one just "does" eugenics like it is accidental. The nature of the project calls for effectively an abandonment of law, and this is what eugenics does every time it is enshrined. You literally can't do eugenics without resorting to brazen lying, because the core conceits are either based on lies, or will inevitably be co-opted by people who decide they're going to make themselves a permanent hereditary aristocracy. If you reduced eugenics to that which could be reasonably proven, it would not amount to much except institutionalization of the very obviously unfit. They ran out of those very quickly, and eugenics didn't change anything in that regard, since the very stupid were always killed on sight. Eugenics always calls for massive waves of death and degradation, and takes a mile for every inch given. It always results in Nazism or something worse, because eugenics is an absolute ideology. If you ever halfassed eugenics, it would be pointless because everyone would ignore it. In practice, people will always choose to mate with whomever they want, and the intelligent do not need Francis Galton to tell them who the smart people are. The entire point of eugenics, stated explicitly in Galton's writings, has been an open war on the whole working class, and it was explicitly intended to stall forever any working class organization. By giving a few workers but especially the middle class a buy-in with genetic identity, it was possible to place a premium on nothing more than Galton's blessing to exist. It's a great scam if you can make it stick, but you have to run a completely Satanic government and society to attain the conditions of eugenics. The result, in its ideal state, is that everyone becomes a screaming maniac. You get something worse than Ingsoc.

If you wanted to selectively breed for any beneficial trait, you would not resort to the program of insinuation and conspiracy that Galton did. That would be entirely counterproductive. From the outset, it was understood to be a war and political coup, rather than anything about making people healthier or better. There are far better ways to do that if you actually wanted to. Eugenics' greatest propaganda victory was to associate their stupid Satanic pseudoscience with "health" and to disallow any concept of such to exist without their approval. The result is there for all to see - hospitals which make people sicker and gouge you for the crime of existing, schools which go further out of their way to not teach than anything that has ever existed before, and just about every institution infected by this drive to purge the population. That's all it ever was.
If you just wanted to selectively breed traits, there wouldn't be this game of insinuation. They'd just say "so and so mates with this person". If that were done, though, it would be clear that what the eugenicists wanted was to glorify themselves and rape the world, because that's all it ever was. You would find that you couldn't change much with eugenics that wouldn't have been changed by other political means, since the only notable result was the removal of extreme defectives, which was already 98% the case. The one thing eugenics did was make their very existence illegal, since they don't believe in letting people have any sort of life after sterilization. It's a slave system and the worst one yet known.
If you wanted biological engineering, it would make any selective breeding appear silly. To actually do that would require a non-retarded approach to biology, which is simply impossible so long as eugenics rules. Eugenics would fight to the death to disallow that, and has done so by enshrining pseudoscience. They only allow a limited investigation into biology to find new ways to mutilate. Any approach which would make the eugenic creed obviously untenable is attacked on sight, even something innocuous like agronomy (can't have the useless eaters being fed, right?)

Eugenics is what created the West. The Catholic banned cousin marriage, which reduced tribalism. The many centuries of famine, black death and Christian warfare killed off a large portion of the stupidest whites. The mini-ice age from the 1600s made it harder for poor and thus stupid people to have large families. All this combined to have a strong Eugenic selection pressure resulting in the average autism score being 120 in the West during its peak in the 1850s. If you don't have Eugenics as the policy, you get dysgenics.

>>466018
>The many centuries of famine, black death warfare killed off a large portion of the stupidest
I don't know about that one, when rulers try to warmonger they tend to uplift useful idiots, while intelligent people who try to resolve conflict with diplomacy are shafted. Malnutrition from famine isn't exactly beneficial for brain development either.

>The mini-ice age from the 1600s made it harder for poor and thus stupid people to have large families
Poor people are probably smarter than rich people because they had to develop more brain power to live on a small budget. Killing off the poor sounds like a dumb idea from rich people that don't realize they get rich by exploiting the poor.

>All this combined to have a strong Eugenic selection pressure resulting in the average autism score being 120
kek. Eye-Q scores usually normalize average intelligence to 100 points. So 100 is always the average score, no matter what. It's a relative measurement, not a absolute measurement.

>>466018
>Based common sense poster
Unfortunately, most people here are mouthbreathers who judge things based on if it sounds good

>Poor people are probably smarter than rich people because they had to develop more brain power to live on a small budget
What a cope. Every study (and basic common sense) suggests that chronic, low level stress associated with poverty dulls the ability for long term planning and wise descision making. Anyone whose visited an deeply impoverished country or neighborhood could tell you that.

>>466023
it used to be common sense to gulag the "lets murder the poor gang"
what a fall from grace

>>466024
>Every study suggests that chronic, low level stress associated with poverty dulls the ability for long term planning and wise descision making.
That is true. We can conclude that the people who were made poor (by rich-people stealing from them, which is how pretty much all poverty is created these days), are subject to bad environments.

So in order for you to judge their root intelligence, you have to subtract the bad environmental influences. And it's pretty obvious that these people needed better brains to begin with, to explain that they still have a somewhat functional brain left in bad conditions.

If rich people were actually superior, they wouldn't need to inflict poverty on others to bring them down. If the leaders in your society are actually high caliber people they don't need to strangle the competition by casting them into poverty to dull their brains

Looks like a eugenist exposes himself as a sniveling retard yet again, and gets enabled to say such stupid shit. I can't even with these assholes.

Any time someone cites intelligence measurements from long ago, it should be understood to be more Galtonite faggotry superimposed on any actual assessment. It's strange how a society without autism score s produced better people who retained more of their wits than eugenic society, and how every eugenic policy has meant retardation and poisoning of people. This idea that you get better by killing each other like retards is what ghetto uyghurs think. The Nazis are just uyghurs that masturbated their melanin away and resemble the Yakub story about the white man's origins - and when you get into their esoteric faggotry, they believe in something like the Yakub story but that it was a good thing. Ask how well the slave societies of West Africa were and the incentives at work, because slavery kept on going all the way through the 20th century, and continued even though it was stigmatized.

Before you say anything about baseline intelligence, you would have to conceive of society working in any way we would consider good, and that has never been the case. Those who rule society and give us our ideas are the worst pieces of shit who have lived since time immemorial by beating and humiliating most of humanity. Whatever intelligence we attain in this society is in spite of its institutions, and if we lived in a society that actually favored the full development of knowledge and favored the expression of any hereditary intelligence, even the dullest of us would be much smarter. Strange thing is, nowadays they have a better understanding of how people think. They could teach the autists and retards if they wanted to, but there is immense pressure to absolutely refuse to do that, and deny that the victims will on their own initiative learn what they can. It is an absolute that autism score 0 must be maintained forever, so a bunch of screaming Germanic retards can maintain their faggot cope.

>>465117
I cant think anything more important than genetically modifying rightoids into not being evil retards. The CRISPR gene modification technology is there for few hundred dollars so use it.

>>471446
We probably should investigate the possibility of using genetic engineering to improve health-care, both in terms of patient health outcomes and lowering the cost of care. But the "evil" can't be gene modified away. If you want to build a classless society you need an economic system and social institutions that does not generate a ruling class. Messing around with the genes of people instead of fixing the system is not going to work.

>>471447
>But the "evil" can't be gene modified away.
>If you want to build a classless society you need an economic system and social institutions that does not generate a ruling class.
These dont exclude themselves. Making a better world is easier when fascists are aborted before they are born or even better they are cured completely.

>>471458
Fascism arises when you mix people from a particular class being duped by an upper class to serve their interest when their typical avenues fail to control the majority. The way to solve this is to use state power to ruthlessly suppress this class. I know this is just bait but I don't want it to go unaddressed. Plenty of fascists will rightfully be exterminated in the class war without having to resort to pseudoscience like eugenics.

>>471458
>Making a better world is easier when fascists are aborted before they are born or even better they are cured completely.

The fascists implemented a eugenics program and in their eyes that was supposed to lead to a better world as well. Like the idea of deleting the bad guys from the "gene-pool" is very common in all sorts of fascisms.

There are complicating factors of isolating something like "fascist genes". There can't be evolved fascism because the phenomenon hasn't existed long enough to cause evolutionary adaptations. There also are many variants of fascism. German fascism was different from Italian fascism, and Japanese fascism was something else again. It's also possible to have new versions of fascism, like for example "woke" rainbow-fascism is possible too.

It is very common for ruling classes in fascistic systems to think that they have special "ruler-genes". For the record I think that's ludicrous nonsense. But if you'd take them by their own word and tried to find and delete those "ruler-genes", where would you start looking ?

I think that inserting politics into science is a recipe for disaster.

Stuff like genetic health care is possible tho.

To answer the original question, Eugenics originally was a left-wing project. Before the Nazis were doing it, it was already being pushed in the United States by the likes of Margaret Sanger and Teddy Roosevelt. (If you don't believe me about Sanger, try reading her book The Pivot of Civilization.)

>>471458 There is no genetic link to political ideology. There are predispositions, but that is all.

>>465168 You should look at the world TFR. Almost every country not located in the Middle East or Africa is below replacement rate, and even the Africans have a declining TFR. Next, try plotting GDP vs TFR. You may find the results surprising.

eugenics is a femoid project, fuck off with this shit

>>471494
>There are predispositions
I don't even for a second believe eugenic fags can pinpoint such complex behaviors as political stance to specific genes.

Those dumbfucks have problems locating fucking genetic diseases to specific genes.

If you're a sub8male and you shill for eugenics - you're a brainwashed manslave

What you uyghas think about the fact that when abortion is legalized, people will abort children with down syndrome. And this includes autism now that people can detect it in the womb supposedly
Is this a soft sort of eugenics?

>>471496
Theoretically, yes. But on the other hand we could lose some new sus genetic variant of human uygha organism by yeeting every supposed autismo outta their production facility, so it's a kinda shitty situation in whole.

>>471496 That's not soft eugenics, that's just normal eugenics.

>>471496
down syndrome is not heritable. at the same time i doubt the parents aborting them care

>>471504
Down syndrome was pretty much annihilated in Iceland, where abortion is legal. I think this is extremely ironic considering autist are much more violent compared to downies. It's all lookism.

>>466018
>All this combined to have a strong Eugenic selection pressure resulting in the average autism score being 120 in the West during its peak in the 1850s
yes and these are the results

They used to say that only the barbarians would sacrifice their children to Gaea, for better harvests, to ensure the future of a group, etc. They seem to forget that we are still doing exactly that. It's just that now it is clinical and primarily for our convenience.

>>471640
Read a bit more and you'll realize that infanticide was extremely and disturbingly common throughout cultures and history. People would leave babies in the woods, in boxes, under buildings and the sewers. Some had the excuse that what we would now call an disabled child was actually the child of a troll, uncontrollable for humans to raise and deed, and it would be better to leave them in the woods with their kind.
Abortion is much more human than killing a living unwanted baby or leaving it die, because that is the inevitability when people have no other option and can't raise it. Maybe if we lived in a society where people can actually afford to raise them, and where the state would actually bother to help parents to feed and educate them, where having a baby won't put you in debt. But that isn't gonna happen in the US anytime soon.

>>471704
live documentary of USA daily life coming in

>>471705
what is this masterpiece called?

>>471538
Autism is a curse. Even Down Syndrome kids fare better.

>>471704
This. It goes to show that children the biggest underclass of proles that even women and elderly get more sympathy from patraichy.

This is why I say childrearing should not be a universal right.

>>478826
Why is autism a curse?

>>471704
>Maybe if we lived in a society where people can actually afford to raise them, and where the state would actually bother to help parents to feed and educate them, where having a baby won't put you in debt. But that isn't gonna happen in the US anytime soon.

Americans are too obsesses with family planning to care about the potential grim prospects of their kids.

They look down on childless adlrs, even shunning them.
Meanwhile breeders get free sympathy and tax cuts. Even though most parents dont raise their kids but rather have the schools do all that for them.

>>478827
why is not a curse. Im tired of online posters trying to rationalise it.

Most dont have a proper social life nor good physiology.
Their prospects for work are grim.
Theyre sexual beings but nobody wants to intimate with them.

Theres nothing good about autism.

Even cancer is better.

In fact, autists have a higher likelihood for cancer than neurotypicals.

And no, "muh capitalism" is not the inherent problem.
Stop using capitalism as an emotional punching bag.

>>478831
I'm sorry to hear that. But what would you say about the people who happen to have autism and have somewhat fulfilling lives?

>>478834
Theyre the outliers.

>>465117
>Eugenics, can it be a left-wing policy?
No because admitting that biological differences exist is already anti-leftist. Your model of the world is that evolution magically creates all humans equal and then bad environments is what screws them up.

>>478838
We're not Lassalleans this isn't the SPD you're fighting ghosts in your head

>>465117
At this point I only hope that rightoidism can be cured at DNA level. Killing entire generations of reactionaries is not enough.

>>478882
I know this is an expression of frustration, but please don't promote bio-politics. Political stances are not caused by DNA.

>>478883
Fuck I forgot that political stances are caused by magical spirits instead of material reality.

>>478890
Political stances are caused by material conditions outside the body. Our DNA was shaped by evolution, which operates at time-scales that politics cannot affect. Political stances last decades to perhaps centuries. Genetic adaptation happen over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

Politics is very complex behavior it may not be possible to put that into DNA.

A reason why bio-politics is tempting for some, is because they want to believe that they are intrinsically good, who can do no wrong. Therefor bio-politics is not just a scientifically questionable thing, but also potentially a point of entry for dangerous illusions.

>>478893
This.
Politics is the realm of the social.


Although I can say that politics can be indirectly influenced by biology via social status.

The link between politics and biology is sociology.

>>465118
tbh the human genome is degrading. Ita not really because of industrial pollution although it does accelerate it.

Everything that exists has a beginnung and will have an ending.