Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 hours ago#133,102
So I remember one time when I was 14 I saw some YouTube video about 4chan and hackers on 4chan so I went to 4chan expecting to find something edgy. Instead what I found was the cringiest nerdiest gayest thing ever. Like people posting furry porn and anime and that kinda stuff. But it’s weird because 4chan has a reputation for being racist and right wing, but as a black dude when I went on there when I was 14, I find find any racism, I just found a lot of autism.
I was feeling bored of this site so I went back to 4chan and I was looking around a little bit, I found sections of the website devoted to porn, LGBTQ, cute/male, "pony" (just the word pony). Do you people really hang out on 4chan? I’ve never posted there, that place is so gay and I’m not even homophonic.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 5 hours ago, 47 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,419,099
Ah, nope, there’s still an anime section. But at least they seem to be quarantining it in that one section pretty well… I’m not finding random catgirl nonsense all over the place.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 4 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,419,108
It is kinda funny though that on 4chan people were talking about how the world is run by pedophile billionaires, when /pol/ was created by a pedophile billionaire.
The general problem with eugenics is that it’s favored by elites whose wealth and biases inform behavior, not “social hygiene.” You could wipe out a ton of diseases with genetic testing as a precondition to having kids. If you go to Nordic countries they don’t have Down Syndrome kids anymore.
The way it was previously imposed in the U.S. often consisted of force sterilization of “white trash,” including teens who were impregnated through rape.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,419,118
If I’m being honest, I have this weird thing where I believe in God and science at the same time, so my feeling on this is I believe in natural selection, and I think God knows best at the same time. I don’t think we should try to change humanity, I think that’s a fools errand. If something doesn’t work, it will be naturally selected out of the gene pool. There are some cases, for example, sickle cell is more common in West African populations but people with sickle cell anemia are more likely to survive malaria, which is why it was selected for in that part of the world. So someone might think it’s a good idea to wipe out all the people with sickle cell, but then actually more people would end up dying because of malaria if nobody had that gene. So really, I think we just shouldn’t mess with it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 hours ago, 19 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,419,121
There are some more controversial things too, like, males commit more crime for example. People say it’s because of testosterone… plenty of men with healthy testosterone levels never commit acts of violence. But the genes associated with psychopathy are sex-linked so men are more likely to be psychopaths than women are. However, even though people might think psychopaths are dangerous and horrible and we should get rid of those genes, some people think that psychopathy is actually advantageous on a collective level. In order to form a society that can defend itself you need a certain subset of the population who is fine with murdering people. And then police officers and politicians and CEOs and in general people in positions of power are more likely to be psychopaths than the general population.
What I’m getting at is traits we think of as "bad" actually sometimes do have an important purpose, and they’re in our gene pool for an evolutionary reason. I don’t think humans should try to reduce our genetic diversity.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 4 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,419,125
Then I think there are other problems with eugenics. For example, people gravitate towards comparing phenotypes more than genotypes, so people will inevitably start wondering about race. Really, there’s a reason why people in the southern hemisphere have dark skin and people in the northern hemisphere have light skin. It’s because if you’re white and living in Africa you’re slightly more likely to die from skin cancer than a black person is, and if you’re black in the northern hemisphere you’re more likely to get vitamin D deficiency. So the fact that humanity has genetic diversity that correlates to different climates isn’t evidence that one type of person is better, people are just best adapted to where they come from. If you populated Africa with Europeans for example, that would be a net negative because you’d increase the number of people dying from skin cancer.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 4 hours ago, 23 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,419,129
People who support eugenics often claim that whites are superior since Europe has a better economy than Africa (it has nothing to do with genetics it has to do with geography, history, and demographic transitions). But if Africa was populated by Europeans, Europeans have lower rates of sickle cell anemia and they have lighter skin tones. So if Africa was populated by Europeans, it’s almost certain that more people would be dying in Africa.
For example, one study found that white South Africans are 10x more likely to develop skin cancer than black South Africans.
"In this chapter, two South African population groups, White and Black African, are compared with regard to cutaneous melanoma (CM). The incidence of CM in Black Africans is about 10% of that in Whites, explained at least in part by the protection offered by cutaneous melanin."
My view is that eugenics would cause much more harm than good because an inaccurate understanding of why people from certain places have certain genes will inevitably lead to us editing genes to solve problems while accidentally creating bigger problems. I just think it’s a bad idea, personally.
Anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 4 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,419,130
Or if there is a best combination of genes, it’s probably just the average of all genes everywhere, because then you’d wind up on average optimizing for everything. So if there was a "most superior" group of people, they’d probably look like Brazilians.
Anonymous A (OP) quintuple-posted this 3 hours ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,419,132
@previous (A)
But even then, if everybody in Europe and Africa was brown that’s better than if everybody in Europe and Africa were black or everybody in Europe and Africa were white, but still worse than the current situation which is Europe is mostly white and Africa is mostly black. People are different because they’re adapted to different place. If you try and change people to improve things, I find it really really hard to believe that would be a net positive.
Anonymous A (OP) sextuple-posted this 3 hours ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,419,136
Then I think there’s also just stuff we can’t even really objectively evaluate. Some people have a longer index finger, some people have a longer ring finger, some people have both fingers the same length. What does that mean? It’s not clear exactly what benefit that has or what the "correct" one is.