Eugenics: Selective Breeding

[Draven]

Now I been reading upon here certain ancient religious cults, secret societies and philosophers practiced selective breeding of humans. Infact even among the nobles of Europe & China the myth of divine right to rule, dragon bloodlines or even in countries like Egypt, Tibet and India there is mention said divine bloodlines and selective breeding among the ruling classes at various times in history.

In modern occultism; this veiw is mirrored, a fact that Hitler who was atleast interested in the occult and spent a great deal of time, energy and money researching the occult also believed. However "taited and evil" the docturine seems there is scientific evidence that such is a fact and that selective breeding may produce superior individuals without genetic modifications. So what are everyone's thoughts on this..?

From Wiki: Eugenics - Psychology Wiki
[i]Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and fetal screening genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Critics argue that eugenics was and still is a pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and severe human rights violations, such as forced sterilization (e.g., of those perceived to have mental or social defects) and even genocide.

Selective breeding of human beings was suggested at least as far back as Plato, but the modern field was first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin, Charles Darwin. From its inception, eugenics (derived from the Greek "well born" or "good breeding") was supported by prominent thinkers, including Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw, and Winston Churchill]], and was an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Its scientific reputation tumbled in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the Racial policy of Nazi Germany During the postwar period both the public and the scientific community largely associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, which included enforced "racial hygiene" and extermination, although a variety of regional and national governments maintained eugenic programs until the 1970s. [I/]

From: Mendelian inheritance - Psychology Wiki
Mendel's law of segregation, also known as Mendel's first law, essentially has four parts.

Alternative versions of genes account for variations in inherited characters. This is the concept of alleles. Alleles are different versions of genes that impart the same characteristic. Each human has a gene that controls height, but there are variations among these genes in accordance with the specific height the gene "codes" for.
For each character, an organism inherits two genes, one from each parent. This means that when somatic cells are produced from two gametes, one allele comes from the mother, one from the father. These alleles may be the same (true-breeding organisms, e.g. ww and rr in Fig. 3), or different (hybrids, e.g. wr in Fig. 3).
If the two alleles differ, then one, the dominant allele, is fully expressed in the organism's appearance; the other, the recessive allele, has no noticeable effect on the organism's appearance. In other words, the dominant allele is expressed in the phenotype of the organism. However this does not always hold true: Today, we know several examples that disprove this "law", e.g. Mirabilis jalapa, the "Japanese wonder flower" (Fig. 3). This is called incomplete dominance. There is also codominance on a molecular level, e.g. people with sickle cell anemia, when normal and sickle-shaped red blood cells mix and prevent malaria.
The two genes for each character segregate during gamete production. This is the last part of Mendel's generalization. The two alleles of the organism are separated into different gametes, ensuring variation.
During his experiments, Mendel encountered some traits that did not follow the laws he had encountered. These traits did not appear independently, but always together with at least one other trait. Mendel could not explain what happened and chose not to mention it in his work. Today, we know that these traits are linked on the same chromosome.

[edit] Mendel's law of independent assortment
Also known as Mendel's Second Law
The most important principle of Mendel's law of independent assortment is that the emergence of one trait will not affect the emergence of another. While his experiments with mixing one trait always resulted in a 3:1 ratio (Fig. 1) between dominant and recessive phenotypes, his experiments with mixing two traits showed 9:3:3:1 ratios (Fig. 2). Mendel concluded that each organism carries two sets of information about its phenotype. If the two sets differ on the same phenotype, one of them dominates the other. That way, information can be passed on through the generations, even if the phenotype is not expressed (F1 generations, figures 1 and 2).

Mendel's findings allowed other scientists to simplify the emergence of traits to mathematical probability. A large portion of Mendel's findings can be traced to his choice to start his experiments only with true breeding plants. He also only measured absolute characteristics such as color, shape, and position of the offspring. His data was expressed numerically and subjected to statistical analysis. This method of data reporting and the large sampling size he used gave credibility to his data. He also had the foresight to look through several successive generations of his pea plants and record their variations. Without his careful attention to procedure and detail, Mendel's work could not have had the impact it made on the world of genetics.

Main Source Menu: MemoryTransferReferences [LifeSave.org]
From: Foreign Thoughts
And as more and more patients recover from these surgical procedures, a strange thing has been happening. Some report having foreign memories, eerie new personal preferences and even unexplained emerging talents.

The Discovery Health Channel recently explored this occurrence in a program titled "Transplanting Memories." In the show various experts explained why they believe cellular memories are transplanted with organs.

Dr. Candace Pert, a professor at Georgetown University, said she believes the mind is not just in the brain, but also exists throughout the body. This school of thought could explain such strange transplant experiences.

"The mind and body communicate with each other through chemicals known as peptides," she said. "These peptides are found in the brain as well as in the stomach, muscles and all of our major organs. I believe that memory can be accessed anywhere in the peptide/receptor network. For instance, a memory associated with food may be linked to the pancreas or liver, and such associations can be transplanted from one person to another."

Indeed, a German neurologist, Leopold Auerbach, discovered over 100 years ago that a complex network of nerve cells, very like those of the human brain, exists in the intestine.

Professor Wolfgang Prinz, of the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Munich, recently wrote about this "second brain" in Geo, a German science magazine.

Prinz said the digestive track is made up of a knot of about 100 billion brain nerve cells, more than found in the spinal cord. The article suggested the cells may save information on physical reactions to mental processes and give out signals to influence later decisions. It may also be involved in emotional reactions to events.

Prinz joked that the discovery gives a new twist to the old phrase "gut reaction."

"People often follow their gut reactions without even knowing why, its only later that they come up with the logical reason for acting the way they did. But we now believe that there is a lot more to gut feelings than was previously believed," Prinz wrote. He said he thinks the stomach network may be the source for unconscious, or possibly even subconscious decisions.

[Steve_TPF]

I'm in favour of selective breeding, as I've mentioned previously, provided it is used to improve the health of the population.

I wouldn't be surprised if countries like China and Russia are already doing this to breed better athletes for their olympic teams.

[CyberWar]

I am strongly in favour of eugenics and human enchancement, and could accept even more radical form of eugenics, the culling of the weak (as was practiced by Spartans).

It is the weak that drag down the human species - think about all those born defective. They are kept alive for their own suffering and a burden to others, huge resources being wasted on people without a future. What's more, they are even allowed to reproduce because of some abstract right to seek happiness.

Before the advent of modern medicine and human rights (which look great on the paper but are probably the worst thing to ever be practiced in real life), a malformed infant or an incurable cripple would die naturally. Today, when all mechanisms of natural selection are eliminated, it is only logical that human species begin to degrade.

In short, Adolph was right in this field.

[Vallen]

im all for killing all the retards and anyone that can't live without machines or some other unnatural means. it just makes them suffer more.

If we continue trying to make everyone live for as long as possible we are all gonna end up with our brains in robots.
everyone dies sooner or later if you can't deal with that too bad go suck a fuck

[CyberWar]

Cybernethics is just one of the many forms of possible human enchancement. I have no problem with becoming more of a machine than man, on the condition that only the worthy become immortal.

As the Greeks used to say, "only a healthy body can have a healthy mind".

[Draven]

Yes, well bear in the mind the father of this Idea for the Greeks was Plato (see Plato's Rebulic). But, we also have a double standard here...

Originally Posted by CyberWar

I am strongly in favour of eugenics and human enchancement, and could accept even more radical form of eugenics, the culling of the weak (as was practiced by Spartans).

It is the weak that drag down the human species - think about all those born defective. They are kept alive for their own suffering and a burden to others, huge resources being wasted on people without a future. What's more, they are even allowed to reproduce because of some abstract right to seek happiness.

Before the advent of modern medicine and human rights (which look great on the paper but are probably the worst thing to ever be practiced in real life), a malformed infant or an incurable cripple would die naturally. Today, when all mechanisms of natural selection are eliminated, it is only logical that human species begin to degrade.

In short, Adolph was right in this field.

Eugenics is unnatural/artificial selection. So to propose artifical selection to combat the removal of natural selection is well an oxymoron. As a biological rule woman are attracted to men who are charasmatic (natural leaders), Intelligent (providers) and physically superior (stronger/protectors).

Originally Posted by Vallen

im all for killing all the retards and anyone that can't live without machines or some other unnatural means. it just makes them suffer more.

If we continue trying to make everyone live for as long as possible we are all gonna end up with our brains in robots.
everyone dies sooner or later if you can't deal with that too bad go suck a fuck

Well again here we see an oxymoron; your for killing those with physical defects and mental retardation yet use natural order as the reason. So the question I'm asking you both is these...

1) If eugenics is artifical-selection how can natural selection be used as a factor for choosing that path?

2) Barring the natural selection reasoning; we look at Plato's republic (Republic by Plato - Summaries and Commentaries) the idea using eugenics was reserved for the "Guardians" a police/military class would by comparision to use cloning to build armies. Whats everyone opinion on this?

3) Assuming eugenics or genetic engineering was possible for every birth within a given area, would that truly be better for humanity; consider that morality and ethics are not just ideas but ideas which evoke an emotional response?

4) There is a certain amount of growth and evolution. A child with chronic illness (one we might say is genetically weaker then said healthier/stronger child) is less likely to suffer illnesses as later on in childhood and as an adult, so how does this effect your basic opinion of eugenics? Supporting Children's Health

[jrly]

How do we decide who lives and dies? Is it anyone who can't survive without machines? Then Steven Hawking, one the greatest minds of our generation would die? Anyone who's IQ is below 50? 80? 100? 150, if we wanted really intelligent people?

[Draven]

Originally Posted by jrly

How do we decide who lives and dies? Is it anyone who can't survive without machines? Then Steven Hawking, one the greatest minds of our generation would die? Anyone who's IQ is below 50? 80? 100? 150, if we wanted really intelligent people?

A good point and direct proof that the "Healthy body = healthy mind" concept is wrong, or atleast not always true...

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by jrly

How do we decide who lives and dies? Is it anyone who can't survive without machines? Then Steven Hawking, one the greatest minds of our generation would die? Anyone who's IQ is below 50? 80? 100? 150, if we wanted really intelligent people?

A good point indeed. What we should do with people like Hawking is study their genes and try to find out what makes them smart. Then we can select embryos that have these genes. Ideally we would choose those that have his potential without the disability.

Does anyone remember the movie Gattaca? It explored the idea of embryonic selection to get the "best possible" child that the parents genes could produce. Fine by me.

Originally Posted by Draven

Eugenics is unnatural/artificial selection. So to propose artifical selection to combat the removal of natural selection is well an oxymoron.

No it's not. CyberWar was pointing out that modern medicine keeps people alive (and breeding,) who a few generations ago would have died young, before they reproduced and perpetuated their defective genes. This leads to an inevitable degrading of the gene pool. Cyber was proposing that we go one step further. Instead of allowing the weak or sickly to be born and let nature take its course, we discard them before birth. I don't agree with his suggestion of killing the weak though, unless he was referring to embryonic selection.

BTW, Draven, The link you provided on memory transfers in transplant patients was fascinating, though I wouldn't call it established fact at this point. More research is required.

Originally Posted by Draven

1) If eugenics is artifical-selection how can natural selection be used as a factor for choosing that path?

2) Barring the natural selection reasoning; we look at Plato's republic (Republic by Plato - Summaries and Commentaries) the idea using eugenics was reserved for the "Guardians" a police/military class would by comparision to use cloning to build armies. Whats everyone opinion on this?

3) Assuming eugenics or genetic engineering was possible for every birth within a given area, would that truly be better for humanity; consider that morality and ethics are not just ideas but ideas which evoke an emotional response?

4) There is a certain amount of growth and evolution. A child with chronic illness (one we might say is genetically weaker then said healthier/stronger child) is less likely to suffer illnesses as later on in childhood and as an adult, so how does this effect your basic opinion of eugenics? Supporting Children's Health

1. Because Eugenics works on the same principle as natural selection, it's just pre-emptive.
2. I think we are a long way from human cloning, but the idea of cloning the perfect soldier has it's merits. The main drawback is when those soldiers want to breed. Having thousands of identical fathers in the gene pool would lead to inbreeding and negate the advantages of eugenics.
3. Whether it was better for humanity would depend on how and why it was done. If people were bred to be slaves with low intelligence and no free will that would be bad in the long run. If people were bred to be healthier and smarter I see no downside. Doesn't every parent want the best for their child? Having good genes is certainly a good start in life.
4. I'm in favour of eugenics, so this only encourages me.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

A good point indeed. What we should do with people like Hawking is study their genes and try to find out what makes them smart. Then we can select embryos that have these genes. Ideally we would choose those that have his potential without the disability.

Does anyone remember the movie Gattaca? It explored the idea of embryonic selection to get the "best possible" child that the parents genes could produce. Fine by me.

I remember that movie, didn't the genetically superior kid drown and his weaker brother live? Thats a good arguement against eugenics; as one can argue that choices and environment, not genes/nature were the deciding factors. Also Stephen Hawkings could have intellectual genes of a house plant; but having the physical qualities of one as well he used only what he had left his brain?

Also bear in mind eugenics was practiced under many names; in fuedualism we called it nobility or royalty. Also eugenics is based on the idea of breeding based on genetic markers and traits not natural selection through mating ritual, courtship or attraction. In fact it might require an attractive, athletic & healthy person to breed with a ugly, unathletic and unhealthy person in hopes of getting a combination of Arnold & Hawking?

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

No it's not. CyberWar was pointing out that modern medicine keeps people alive (and breeding,) who a few generations ago would have died young, before they reproduced and perpetuated their defective genes. This leads to an inevitable degrading of the gene pool. Cyber was proposing that we go one step further. Instead of allowing the weak or sickly to be born and let nature take its course, we discard them before birth. I don't agree with his suggestion of killing the weak though, unless he was referring to embryonic selection.

BTW, Draven, The link you provided on memory transfers in transplant patients was fascinating, though I wouldn't call it established fact at this point. More research is required.

That relates to what I was disgussing from the unnatural selection thing, since the parents breed not for nature reasons; attraction, attatchment or good 'Ol fun but to produce genetically superior off spring.

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations."
--Galton; 1865 article Hereditary Talent and Character & 1869 book Hereditary Genius.[

Eugenics have a serious draw back, they are limited only to a starting point. How the life ends is up to things like upbringing, social environment and education. Good genes; potential means nothing if it isn't realized.

BTW; I thought you might like the memory transfers in transplant patients stuff and could so the possible applications with eugenics Which brings up another eugenics issue, since eugenics was practiced by ancient pagans and various cults, they claim that to be a true witch/wizard whatever one had to come from a family which practiced witchcraft/ritual occultism. Perhaps lending to an older discription of eugenics for psychic ability or allowing for innate interpetation psychological factors?

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

1. Because Eugenics works on the same principle as natural selection, it's just pre-emptive.

As I already stated eugenics denies natural human instinct in favor of calculated heriditory projections. So while a child may die, or get dtronger through the experience or challenge of living (a common example is the rute of liter which usually produces a stronger adult in the long run) which may be more supportive in the long run.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

2. I think we are a long way from human cloning, but the idea of cloning the perfect soldier has it's merits. The main drawback is when those soldiers want to breed. Having thousands of identical fathers in the gene pool would lead to inbreeding and negate the advantages of eugenics.

Not nessecarily; remember Hilter practiced eugenics and had more birth defects. The reason why was that the same trait (in that case blonde hair and blue eyes) that appeared in both parents canelled each other out and allowed recessive "junk genes" to become compounded.

So with too may "genius genes" floating into the gene pool you run the risk of having more junk genes activating and seeing less geniuses running around more more people such a Stephen Hawking who are greatly intelliectual but would die without physical aid. Or would could see extemely healthy and strong people who are retarded and near useless beside grunt work.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

3. Whether it was better for humanity would depend on how and why it was done. If people were bred to be slaves with low intelligence and no free will that would be bad in the long run. If people were bred to be healthier and smarter I see no downside. Doesn't every parent want the best for their child? Having good genes is certainly a good start in life.

Certainly there is a downside, too many chiefs and not enough indians. Intelligent people tend to be leaders or at manipulate the brutish-leaders into doing what they want. More so, intelliecuals tend to not be followers; they tend to think for themselves...

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

4. I'm in favour of eugenics, so this only encourages me.

Yes but its the child's challenge to his/her immune system is what determines illness later on. So a genetically superior child who doesn't get sick at a young age will be weaker in the long run compared to the inferior child who overcomes the challenge.

[CyberWar]

Embryonic selection is one thing, and a Spartan life full of hardship is another method to combat lack of natural selection.

For example, boarding schools with harsh discipline and regular real-life survival exercises could be another way to sift out the weak. For example, take a 10-year-old kid, teach him the basics and dump him in the outback where death from exposure, predators or starvation is a very real threat. If he makes it back alive, the experience will definately toughen him and prepare him for future ordeals. Many tribal societies have been known to engage in such practice. Another such rite of passage was the first kill of an enemy - if the youngster survived the battle, he would be accepted in the status of a man.

[sacrednines]

If we consider that the advent of “human rights” - as mentioned by CyberWar - is a natural milestone in any intelligent civilization’s social accomplishment (and has the negative effects of generational decay), then it suffices to say that without the prospect of eugenics, it may actually be a law of intelligence that it eventually, quite naturally, erodes itself. We must remember that every species branch is an unconscious (or conscious) “experiment” of the natural process of biological evolution. The natural 'experiment' of our species’ constructs maybe a temporary, self-extinguishing, “flicker” in the timeline of any biological environment. In short, our fate as a higher intelligence maybe extinction through flawed breeding practices if the positive eugenics via deliberate or environmental stresses is truly discarded. If we did implement selective breeding at the same time as a species, I'd be stunned. It’s more likely that a few nations or groups would have a considerable head start on the rest, and over time, create different sub-species that would likely enslave or otherwise subjugate the other, less pristine groups. If there was some unity through some global, assembled authority, the idea may not be recieved very warmly by the masses, which leaves the only supporters in the position of power and poised for control, class division on an dangerous scale.

Also, if man is a clever enough creature to recognize this and establish counter measures, - it may explain some of the stranger pedigree behaviors observed in “higher” sub-societies of human culture (though I don’t actually believe this to be the case). Or it may be a natural device of time to periodically "expunge the weaker genes" by bringing the population numbers considerably low and giving natural eugenics another chance at "positive" progress. Although, again, using our ancestral studies, we see that intelligence itself is a desired species trait. After all, it’s the knowledge of language that allows us to even have this discussion, and there’s not much evidence to say the same paths wouldn’t be taken, allowing the cycle to eventually do a 360 and repeat itself. Such a concept fits hansomely in this universe of cycles (or chaos). I happen to agree that selective breeding looks good on paper, but personally, real world/large scale practice echoes oppression, control, - and in some form or another – tyranny in my mind. But that might be an unnecessarily pessimistic opinion and, in all honesty, I haven't given much thought.

This is just a thought, I’m not presenting it as anything on par with irrefutable proof, nor have I given these ideas more than the last 5 minutes of typing them, and I understand that to consider such a thing requires the pre-acceptance of what some may call, “certain ongoing scientific controversies”. I’m just trying to piece together the larger picture of these theoretical predictions before I have to go back to work.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Embryonic selection is one thing, and a Spartan life full of hardship is another method to combat lack of natural selection.

For example, boarding schools with harsh discipline and regular real-life survival exercises could be another way to sift out the weak. For example, take a 10-year-old kid, teach him the basics and dump him in the outback where death from exposure, predators or starvation is a very real threat. If he makes it back alive, the experience will definately toughen him and prepare him for future ordeals. Many tribal societies have been known to engage in such practice. Another such rite of passage was the first kill of an enemy - if the youngster survived the battle, he would be accepted in the status of a man.

We are a civilized culture we don't kill other humans needlessly; except for terrorists but they aren't human any way lol (no one get upset I joking). I'm more in favor of Nietzschean philosophy, even if they aren't a real group of people the idea is kinds of a civilized spartan society they used genetic engineer and selective breeding to get physically superior off spring but raising them to be both strong, smart and cunning...

Nietzschean (Andromeda) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The human philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed that strife and conflict would inevitably reshape the race of men into something better and stronger than what they once were. As a superhuman species, Nietzscheans took his words to heart and used genetic engineering, selective breeding and nanotechnology to reshape themselves into the ultimate survivors.

Nietzscheans have built their culture on the twin pillars of Social Darwinism and Dawkinite Genetic Competitiveness. Their single-minded devotion to self-improvement and the propagation of their own genes can strike other species (even their non-Nietzschean human cousins) as selfish and arrogant, yet in practice the Nietzscheans' boundless energy and willpower made them valued contributors to the Systems Commonwealth. For all their genetic engineering and its resulting superhuman strength and endurance, Nietzscheans are still basically human beings, with human emotions."

Nietzschean (Andromeda) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Nietzscheans pride themselves on their attractiveness, strength, cunning, and treachery."

Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Nietzsche’s works remain controversial, and no real consensus exists on their meaning. The interpretation of his works seems shakier than the interpretative literature on most other major philosophers. One can readily identify some key concepts, but the meaning of each, let alone the relative significance of each, remains contested.

Part of the difficulty in interpreting Nietzsche arises from the uniquely provocative style of his philosophical writing. Nietzsche called himself a philosopher of the hammer, and he frequently delivered trenchant critiques of Christianity and of great philosophers like Plato and Kant in the most offensive and blasphemous terms possible given the context of 19th century Europe. His arguments often employed ad-hominem attacks and emotional appeals, and, particularly in his aphoristic works, he often jumps from one grand assertion to another (leaping from mountain-top to mountain-top, as he describes it), with little sustained logical support or elucidation of the connection between his ideas. All these aspects of Nietzsche's style run counter to traditional values in philosophical writing, and they alienated Nietzsche from the academic establishment both in his time and, to a lesser extent, today (when some analytic philosophers tend to dismiss Nietzsche as inconsistent and speculative, producing something other than "real" philosophy).

A few of the themes that Nietzsche scholars have devoted the most attention to include Nietzsche's views on morality, his view that "God is dead" (and along with it any sort of God's-eye view on the world thus leading to perspectivism), his notions of the will to power and Übermensch, and his suggestion of eternal return."

Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In both these projects, Nietzsche's genealogical account of the development of master-slave morality occupies a central place. Nietzsche presents master-morality as the original system of morality—perhaps best associated with Homeric Greece. Here, value arises as a contrast between good and bad: wealth, strength, health, and power (the sort of traits found in an Homeric hero) count as good; while bad is associated with the poor, weak, sick, and pathetic (the sort of traits conventionally associated with slaves in ancient times).

Slave-morality, in contrast, can only come about as a reaction to master-morality. Nietzsche associates slave-morality with the Jewish and Christian traditions. Here, value emerges from the contrast between good and evil: good associated with charity, piety, restraint, meekness, and subservience; evil seen in the cruel, selfish, wealthy, indulgent, and aggressive. Nietzsche sees slave-morality as an ingenious ploy among the slaves and the weak (such as the Jews and Christians dominated by Rome) to overturn the values of their masters and to gain power for themselves: justifying their situation, and at the same time fixing the broader society into a slave-like life.

Nietzsche sees the slave-morality as a social illness that has overtaken Europe — a derivative and resentful value which can only work by condemning others as evil. In Nietzsche's eyes, Christianity exists in a hypocritical state wherein people preach love and kindness but find their joy in condemning and punishing others for pursuing that which morality does not allow them to act upon publicly. Nietzsche calls for the strong in the world to break their self-imposed chains and assert their own power, health, and vitality upon the world."

[10000tonnesofdynamite]

Originally Posted by sacrednines

I happen to agree that selective breeding looks good on paper, but personally, real world/large scale practice echoes oppression, control, - and in some form or another – tyranny in my mind. But that might be an unnecessarily pessimistic opinion and, in all honesty, I haven't given much thought.

This is the with eugenics that concerns me most. Despite the advantages of selective breeding, it removes the freedom associated with the act of breeding. Those who choose not to particpate in selective breeding for the sake of free will, will end up as a weaker race. The genetically superior race would easily be able to exploit them.