you have no evidence for this

btw god if you dont know what the portable hemosep is... its basically 'people dont bleed to death anymore'

because something that is taboo will never be TRIED to be falsified

@NinjaQuick What if it is done through voluntary monetary incentives

Set during the Great Depression, the novel focuses on the Joads, a poor family of tenant farmers driven from their Oklahoma home by drought, economic hardship, agricultural industry changes, and bank foreclosures forcing tenant farmers out of work. Due to their nearly hopeless situation, and in part because they are trapped in the Dust Bowl, the Joads set out for California. Along with thousands of other "Okies", they seek jobs, land, dignity, and a future.

The Grapes of Wrath is frequently read in American high school and college literature classes due to its historical context and enduring legacy

Sound alike the most boring shit ever

it's a good book

@ManAnimal the portable hemosep was invented like 5 years ago... its now in every hospital and ambulance around the world

Maybe eugenics is not used because...well idk...it doesn't work?

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