Fork from this thread:
>>11199As humans, we have a conception of superiority founded upon virtues. We value intelligence to stupidity, adaptability to inflexibility, speed to sloth, beauty to ugliness. Natural selection does not positively select for any of these things unless they benefit fertility. Euroasian genius, Ethiopian athletics and Korean beauty are all strengths we might appreciate but aren't useful unless there is a ice age, drought or, I don't know, a Martian purge of ugly people. They only persist today on account of isolation. When we treat humans as a free market of traits, strengths and virtue is not rewarded. This has little to do with the welfare state and everything to do with how natural selection no longer punishes weakness.
Some people deny the racial displacement occurring in the west. Some people recognise it but don't care, they think race is only physiological. Others recognise it and accept that human diversity is more just than skin colour but believe that once humanity becomes integrated, all the positive traits from our respective communities will resurface. To me, these are all false, if not outright dangerous, opinions.
I support eugenics, I don't think that governments should regulate procreation but it is something I think government should promote or that everyone should be aware of. I am strongly against anything that behaves like a regression, such as the union of a superior and an inferior. It is a concession to mediocrity since the product is a person less than what he or she could have been.
http://strawpoll.me/4098667