@Kingfish can't remember the stats now but I think most parents to be would rather abort a downie if caught early enough

Oh I totally agree I meant in this org lol

@VinceChaos Want to pick up JR's book on the subject.

Risk of things like Downs Syndrome is absolutely NOT equal for all potential parents, which is why not all mothers are recommended to be screened for it and other diseases

I’m all for that too lol like I said I’m purely interested in ensuring that kids aren’t suffering so if that decreases the chance I’m with it

@missliterallywho I think I remember those stats you just mentioned. Like 75% of parents say the wouldn’t abort a down baby but 80% who find out they’re going to have one choose to terminate

regardless of the pros and cons of gene-editing, i think we all know how it would be applied to whites vs non-whites

@hbutzer0511 i really want to but im in the middle of like 3 books if you include Rules for Radicals for Lit Club. eventually ill read it

JF will continue to put out videos talking about the revolutionary phenotype i highly recommend watching

Avoiding genetic diseases in potential children is as easy as using current screening tech and deciding whether or not to breed in the first place or terminate an existing pregnancy

Just saw this and loved it, thought I'd share with yall

@Nemets more European than European

@missliterallywho yeah I agree but if we can stop hereditary diseases all together, like I said earlier I think it may be a moral imperative to do so, but then again that’s just me

gene editing will lead to purity spiraling basically lol

More pure the better

120% Bavarian phenotype 😎

@VinceChaos 👍 I am rolling on " New Culture, New Right."

Anyone seen gattaca?

@Kingfish is there a moral imperative, in your opinion, that all people have the capability to have healthy offspring?

See affirmative gene editing could get us in hot water. Lets say everybody wants blonde hair and blue eyes. The recessive genes for that can combine and create mutations. So a few generations in, we would be reliant on CRISPer computers for breeding. That is papa JFs take on it.

Is Nature herself immoral by allowing some to have inferior genes?

@missliterallywho maybe there is honestly I don’t know. Frankly I’m biased towards Europeans so I really don’t care if others follow that imperative

Nature is amoral

@Auf WI Yep. Both good and disappointing (interesting subject, explored from a "Hollywood" perspective).

Off to the Gym for some non-transhumanism gains.💪

@missliterallywho I don’t care about what nature thinks it’s an amoral force

If we can manipulate it to help our people for the better so be it imo

@hbutzer0511 nice im making my way through the Bell Curve and Black Rednecks White Liberals

I feel for those of our people incapable of producing healthy offspring, I really do. But I do not think it is our duty or right to play God/tamper with Nature to change their fates.

Interesting eugenics argument going on here I see

if ya had a chance to change your fate......would ya?

Then why was it our fate to make medicine?

Create cures to already cured disease

@missliterallywho I’m not worrying about playing god

@MrBland - VA Yeah, I mean, I think we're pretty much all in favor of soft eugenics, but hard eugenics and/or gene editing is where it gets dicey...

Forgive me for not scrolling back to the beginning to catch fully up but it looks like you are referring to the CRISPR (sp?) thing

If you had the chance to change your fate would you actually be changing anything? 🤔

Nature/god can punish me, but I’ll feel vindicated if it means people are healthier happier and safer

@Bjorn - MD Nature is in favor of soft eugenics. That's just selection.

If suffering gives life meaning, would not the removal of suffering render life meaningless?

Buddah comin in witha hot take