its literally 'dont bleed to death' machine

Eugenics is pseudo science, it is bad and not progressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

how is this relevant to the arugment that ideas which are considered taboo aren't tested

Good books don't have to be not boring ok

Maybe racialism just happens to be pseudoscientific horseshit?

the book wasn't 'boring' if you grew up in isolation on a farm in the 1930s

Whatever makes you sleep

See if you use eugenics you necessarily focus on something

Maybe the people pandering eugenics and "race realism" are charlatans?

Maybe...just maybe

Or maybe not

only to those gluttoned on info in 2019

if you grew up in isolation on a farm in the 1930s you werent reading

Specialisation of population only works if the environment is not changing

what % of the population was on isolated farms in 1930?

Hence eugenics in cattle are okayish

Ford what was you position on the eugenics article?

But if you want it in human pop, you're asking for extinction

pretty high in the US

no

selective breeding is careful farming

hell, selective breeding in humans is fine

ninja - really? higher than it currently is... but i still imagine in 1930 the cities has more population than surrounding areas

> If it is ever documented conclusively, the genetic inferiority of a race on a trait as important as intelligence will rank with the atomic bomb as the most destructive scientific discovery in human history. The correct conclusion is to withhold judgment.
- Turkheimer, E. (1990). Consensus and Controversy About IQ. Psyc critiques, 35(5), 428-430.

we do it naturally, we prefer successful, healthy humans, and don't prefer mates that are shitters

i am not arguing in SUPPORT of it; only pointing out that such things which we ACTIVELY do to improve the health of ANIMAL Populations as it is considered sensible, we won't dare to with human populations

reeeeee

I mean I remember all those famous scientists who specialized in eugenics and ran many tests confirming that eugenics works, and they published those results in well acclaimed scientific journals...oh wait, that never happened

thus not all 'progress' is good

it isn't eugenics in animal populations

A prominent geneticist openly advocating to hide info

it is just cattle raising

Dafuq is dat jack

yes exactly Ford

Scotland voting

therefore, simply declaring something 'not progress' because it is taboo is equally incorrect science

It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it is seen as unethical/immoral or too politically incorrect

exactly

It doesn't work for what lol

"A prominent geneticist openly advocating to hide info" lmao of course you have to rely on conspiratard bs to make your ideas sound at least feasible