Angelmorphism

I think this is the solution to the problems of our world. Evolution and our individual perspectives mean we will always come into conflict, and those who cause their own and others suffering more to win, will win. Artificial wombs to defeat biological evolution, and a technologically unified consciousness to defeat memetic evolution will defeat this, and allow us to finally make the world a paradise as we will it to be (we'll probably need to enhance our foresight as well for this). I hope you agree, and this post will give you hope! I am not one of the original authors, so please don't blame them if you feel this is spam or whatever. The very best wishes to you, babeler@matrix.org remove 1s from this I added against spam bots: e1ndext1ernal1itie11s@post1eo.n1et I also hope this will be a nice thread for you, but I can only promise to be back by end of week.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

>>80522 From the first glance I'd say this is way of a ridiculous creed. We are not angels and we have nothing to do with them except they're created to fulfill a specific purpose, and so are we. This is pure New Age soykaf labeled under the name of angels. I'll read the book anyway...

>>80522 Alr I ain't reading it.. >artificial wombs The fuarrrk am I reading? So you're advocating for a literal cyberpunk dystopia which is literally what we're all here against? >evolution doesn't exist in the first place. They compare bunch of animals and say this came from this and that came from that or whatever. Why doesn't anyone think of creationism? Forgot about the cambrian explosion, or the mitochondrial eve argument? I don't wanna debate or anything, but I just think this dogma you're proposing is not a solution at all.

UwU version of transhumanism, it's serious that you people are still considering adding more technology to our society will make things better?

>Why doesn't anyone think of creationism? Because it's genuinely dumb. Ofc it's possible that some being allocated us into being in a form that appears plausible to have come to be without any such direct external intervention. Hey, maybe we're a save file of an other life tree that's booted up in a 4 dimensional virtual machine to try out some stuff like this post 2016 timeline. Could you imagine that? As for OP, I'm not sure merging everyone into one single super consciousness is that great of an idea. Wasn't Neon Genesis Evangelion about exactly this? That said, I like the moe eyes on that biblically accurate angel desu. Artificial wombs sound interesting on paper but here I can recommend the book Brave New World. Thing is, I don't think we're ready for any of this. Both technologically nor socially. Any attempts at this right now would be nothing but lunacy. What can be done however is realize a change in attitude and philosophy. That consciousness is expanded on and that ways are found that people can emphasize with each other and some common ground can be found to avoid a good number of great filters. But at least that part is good. A post gender society means no troons any more since gender does not matter any more. There's no point in trying to pass as the opposite because there is no opposite. Only reason for you to dress up and play pretend at that point is to be a weirdo.

>>80532 > artificial wombs They can bd dystopic like any tech. Ultimately it is what system/society context tech exists in that makes the difference. In our hypercapitalist corporatocracy, most tech is dystopic. Remember that it’s the megacorps that make cyberpunk fiction dystopian. After all, in an economic system that treats lives as disposable and replacable, robots and artificial wombs become dystopic. That’s part of what Brave New World was criticizing. > literally all here against seeing how many fascists are on /hum/, I don’t think you can make that universal statement anymore :( > creationism It’s a cult dude. Get out while you can.

>>80522 I know this forum has this infamy for being a place "full of schizophrenics", but damn this time you outdid yourselves.

>>80522 >humans are defect >just remodel humans to fix it getting rid of humans is easier than bugfixing and thus more likely to happen. Machines are more likely to become ai angels than gene edited humans.

>>80537 Is your definition of fascist simply everyone who disagrees with you? If so, please stop crying wolf. That term is already muddied up as is. >After all, in an economic system that treats lives as disposable and replacable, robots and artificial wombs become dystopic. That’s part of what Brave New World was criticizing. While I agree with the general sentiment of that statement, the preceding context sounds to me like you're implying that this is solely a "capitalist" thing rather than a problem inherit from large scale organizational human structures. This is the precise reason why I believe communists or "anarcho socialists" are such dangerous idiots. Because they appear to be going after any private enterprise while working relentlessly on bringing even worse stalinistic monsters into being. No matter how much they wish that "this time is different". It always played out the same and will so again. >>80542 But that's the stuff I keep coming back to this board for! >>80543 No more humans no more problems I suppose. Maybe then those 20th century ideologies will finally work. When we turn ourselves into this unified hive being. Greed will cease being an issue at last.

>>80544 its one species getting replaced by another if ai machines replace homo sapiens. Guess most people are uncomfortable with the idea that homo sapiens will have a due date too.

>>80543 Until at least the easy problem of consciousness is solved (not sure), machines aren't moral actors, because we do things for what we emotionally care about, and we can't be sure machines are like us in this. >>80531 Yeah I kinda disagree with the metaphysics chapter, which I don't think think is necessary for its ultimate conclusions, gets into territory which cannot be disproven, and is not necessary to believe for a happy life, but the quotes from the christianity chapter make sense, since it seems many before us had this image of angels as perfected beings one in the form of the good, and stemming from goodness. Besides, the UwU angels are a pleasant to the eyes image, and the aesthetic of purity is motivating and brings joy to life. Our sense of disgust motivates us to avoid unhealth, and humanity's current fractured mind is the source of most of it. What could be a better symbol? "At the end all things will be brought to their original harmonious state, and we shall all become one body, united again into a perfect man, and the prayer of our Savior will be fulfilled, and all will be one." - Jerome (331-420). This guy knew what was up! Dostoyevsky also makes a persuasive appearance. >>80535 I don't think NGE really made a solid argument against it. I also disagree with the parts of the manifesto which dwell on loneliness being everpresent, even if we link up, because loneliness is an emotion which we can overcome through happy stimulus. If Shinji had gone on awesome adventures with his orange goo bros and had a great time together, that would've been an altogether better end to the show. As for artificial wombs, yes, if we don't control memetic evolution and competition with linking minds, they, like everything become a weapon in the self destructive "war of all against all." Same with every other technology. Ted almost realized this, but became self destructive, not seeing the way out, and only trying to delay the problem trends. >>80542 Stay away from thought terminating cliches. Every insult should contain why the thing is bad within it. Is this schizophrenic because it deviates from realistic models of the world? Perhaps you should point this out. Finally, If creationism is real, you should use it to just create a better world for us. If your god is such a cunt she won't, start working on ways to kill it. My loyalty is to feeling creatures, not asinine power.

I don't respect this for the same reason I don't respect "posthumanism" or similar anti-natalist drivel: nowhere is any statement or claim made being qualitatively proven or demonstrated beyond vagueposts and personal anecdote and you butcher the people you're attempting to derive analysis from. On the topic of gender: why do you (I know that you didn't personally write the manifesto, this is a broad "you") write anything about the subject at all? Why should any of your prescriptions be taken seriously instead of the existing projects and movements that you're claiming to be railing against? You draw from queer liberation and transfeminist analysis everywhere yet refuse to give them any credit and deride them for problems that they themselves state clearly (the existence of non-gendered identity has been talked about for decades, you are not novel for pointing out the differences in social recognition between binary trans identities and non-binary or agender ones and the lack of resources for these groups). The only difference I can see between what your angel movement and already existing post-gender/gender abolition advocates besides that you're suicidal and assign negative value to life and irrationally think the solution is to castrate ourselves and become immortal. You're not going to become immortal, you're not going to "eradicate sex." That is delusional myopic idealism. It's not even demonstrated anywhere in this work that you should need to either.

>>80554 (me) This genuinely feels like to me that your hatred and distrust of le troons has overridden any genuine attempt of material analysis. You clearly agree with them (even though you cope and turn around to say that gender is biologically deterministic, in blatant contradiction to every claim you make) so why deride them? This is unnervingly retarded. I shouldn't be so presumptuous, but it is hard to not see someone deride and ruthlessly criticize and rant against gendered society, only to then do a 180 against the very theorists and activists you're getting all of this from and state that gender is biological actually and the only way to solve this is to rewrite reality itself. Either you're a radfem who is coping about being convinced by transfeminist rhetoric or you are a transfeminist who is coping about being convinced by radfem rhetoric, I presume the former but regardless this isn't how you reconcile conflicting ideas. This is how you develop schizophrenia.

>>80522 This is all just trying to inject a progressive liberal eschatology into what is an abjectly horrifying process of technological assimilation. "Angelmorphism" seems like a ridiculous post-modern subculture for hipsters who want to pretend to be in a cargo cult because they read Mark Fisher and wish they were a part of the CCRU, but think Nick Land is too mean to migrants and women on Twitter. It's like you want to pretend you believe in HBD so you can put edgy things in your Twitter bio, but maintain all of the same beliefs as upper class liberal yuppies who talk about the need for a "post-racial" and "post-gender" society. It's a tough pill to swallow for some people, but "xenofeminism", "gender accelerationism", "acid communism", "angelmorphism" etc., it doesn't matter what you want to call it, is all nonsense.

>>80544 > is fascist everyone you disagree with No, just when people knowingly or unknowingly subscribe to its core ideas like autocratic rule, worship of milatary power, might makes right, enemies from within, eugenics, etc. Tankies are fascists in red. > lets not blame the system, let’s blame humanity Assuming you have the best intentions and aren’t just being evasive, why should humanity get the ble for what a few people choose to do? It’s awfully convenient that the consequences of a system’s failures are “just human nature”. > anarchist communists > installing a state Lol wtf? > stalinist etc I can criticize capitalism AND tankyism, at the end of the day they’re both oligarchies. Any system which has a superiors-inferiors divide will dehumanize the inferiors and create a dystopia out of that. In this current system you and I are inferior to the nepo babies who “worked hard” to get all their daddies wealth and connections, so we’re disposable. Fun fact: Did you know that a handful of mega corporations owns 90+% of Americas food supply?

>>80522 Interesting and creative idea but like most “transcend humanity” stuff it’s just a cope to avoid personhood instead of embracing and enhancing it. Often founded on faulty ideas of “impurity” that must be “purged”, but it’s just eugenic and antinatal at the end of the day. >>80554 So basically this is an uncle Ted “I’m not like the other leftists” screed? Didn’t he also have a big rant against trans because he was one or something?

>>80522 Klaus Schwab has discovered lainchan and is performing a sad infiltration

>>80554 "nowhere is any statement or claim made being qualitatively proven" Well, the proof of any new goal for society is in building it, and I'm working on that, but I think the basic claims stand pretty much on their own looking at history. If people naturally wanted the best for everyone, at some point a stable system ensuring that would've emerged. Given that this has not happened, time to change things. Gender- Most of the criticism was at their failure to build successful non gendered bodies, not at their liberatory goals. Much of the research such people already did is very useful. I'm sorry if I disrespected anyone who's done good work, but I in my life do not know of any post-gender activists who made me more powerful and better off. To build effective post-genderism, you need to biologically build a better, happier gender for everyone to be. I think life is good, but can be much better by reproducing through groups instead of individual greed, and that yes, life extension would be quite nice for everyone. >>80555 Please tell me why you think 'gender being biologically determinitic' contradicts my claims? Have you heard of the fruitless gene in flies, whose manipulation causes them to pursue other males, or of sex hormones? I very much agree with the trans community that change is needed, but I haven't seen huge successful societies coming from them, and I see at some level an acceptance of 'fuarrrk you I got mine' which comes with sexuality between 2 people in everyone who engages with current gender roles, which we can do much better than, if not now, than in the future. I think every real change DOES come from 're-writing reality itself' and that is a very good thing to do! Bonding with children for instance decreases testosterone in men, one tiny step in a good direction, which is already encoded by nature. This isn't an impossible, suicidal goal, and can be done in small steps, in order to give everyone a better life together. I would argue that given their failure to produce results, both 'radfemism' and 'transfemism' are far more in denial of reality, since they're 'trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' I'm advocating for something others have advocated for before, but with tools they sadly didn't have. >>80558 I think you're also in possession of 'progressive liberal eschatology,' because everyone want to live in a happy world along with all their friends, feels bad for others, and sees boundaries and definitions they set for the world broken by reality. I've seen some great Nick Land quotes, but I'd call him far more of a cargo cult than this is. He acted like an epic cult, got high, and talked. That isn't really the way to change the world. I'd point out that the reason upper class whites will support HBD but not national socialism is because they don't want bad things to happen to them, and they've had enough bad interactions with their 'white brothers' not to trust them either. If you really want them to adopt a way of life, you need to make it more pleasant than their current way, and that is a failure of both of us, not the public. Acid communism fails because presumably being high doesn't change your nature to be capable of solving the information problem, or principle agent problems within communism. Gender accelerationism probably isn't producing results because you're not producing far more or cooperating better with your accelerated gender. Angelmorphism is based on the fundamental powers of our world- memtic and biological evolution, and while yeah, it might currently have the same results as these, so you might want to hold off, for me, looking for something to perceive my actions within, it really put my goals into words and symbols, and gives me a sense of support in my work. I think there are others out there right now who really feel it and want to build this, but didn't know we were out there, so my post is more for them than those who are going to need results, though I hope I'll soon have enough results to convince you as well. >>80560 I do see that negative tendency in myself to some degree, but I think it's inevitable at some level whenever you try to improve yourself. I also think that while disgust and purity get hijacked by hostile memes, they're essential parts of our ability to look to the future and avoid temporary traps, by calling short term fun which damages us 'disgusting,' and useful but uncomfortable self restraint pure. We can avoid insanity here by remembering this is in the service of utilitarianism. I do agree with you that every good part of angelmorphism is already within us, just needs to be enhanced, and everything we wish to transcend it is still good to decrease somewhat. It's not that the world is evil, or we are bad, it's just that there is purity within us we can let rule even more by genetic and neural manipulations. It's always important to remember this and love that good in you, rather than hating those inevitable failures.

>>80522 The second image, "we can't even imagine how developed they will be" sounds like a mistaken idea. It is correct that previous societies couldn't have imagined how developed we are, and i'm sure you're extrapolating from this. But at the same time they'd laugh at us, and how little we've advanced despite all the soykaf we invented. Under and beyond the great blue skies, those angels might just be quite underwhelming still.

>>80542 I know exactly how I sound saying this bust old lainchan schizos were better! >>80544 > When we turn ourselves into this unified hive being. Greed will cease being an issue at last. Oh but we will also lose the ability to self reflect because there won't be an Other, let alone a whole society of various Others to reflect on. It's also what keeps any kind of AI threat in check, they can be as smart as they want to be, their behavior will remain infantile. So the greed you mention might just turn into delusions of grandeur in terms of plans and that has even more ways to fail than a dystopia. >>80560 First quote, pretty much >>80563 > but can be much better by reproducing through groups instead of individual greed This line has hit me with a kind of dread present in many many horror movies where there's a spooky hivemind - but they're always misguided > the fundamental powers of our world- memtic and biological evolution Can't say I have seen biological evolution solve any 21st century problems, I feel like that one is hardly a "power" at this point. Memetic sure is, but that's just a fancy umbrella world for studying, ideology, research, good communication on local and global scales, etc. Nothing new under the sun, and everyone has been doing it pretty much as well as these angel coolio people imagine themselves to be in the future.

>>80562 While I hate the WEF too I think you’ve never actually read or listened to anything Klaus or the other members have said and are just mindlessly regurgitating a “NWO”-type conspiracy theory peddled by authoritarians. Please consider using a better standard of intellectual honesty and reading primary sources so your critiques have substance. Thank you.

>>80566 Not that lain but I think we already have a NWO: the UN that dictates how each country should rule, not a literal "one world government" in that sense which still needs more time to come. Worst part of it is when I see literally everyone from 3rd world countries studying the same Mendel's laws and trigonometric formulas to hop on the workforce. All countries without distinction today talk about сuсkvid and climate change. https://iv.ggtyler.dev/watch?v=9sBbf6T7aE8 I hate talking about this soykaf but now you're the only one responsible to save yourself.

Self created Gods have existed since at least Egypt... SEL is about a series of experiments that led/lead to godhood; A lain of transcendence, if you will. Secondarily SEL is a lamentation of the fact that "angels" already exist, and are suppressed/forbidden by western cults. Lastly SEL dresses down the "western" (read babylonian) mystery cults by saying "transcendence already happened, WTF are these idiot westerners pretending otherwise for?" The mystery of soul / godhood / druidic wisdom stands juxtaposed materialist idiocy in SEL, and this silly thread on an imageboard by Lain's namesake exists... ugh. Materialists claimed if the whole exact physical self did not transcend then it was a false transcendence, but druidic wisdom shew that Number and forms of their interactions were not dependent upon physical incarnation; Thus, we of the physical realm (our transcendent pathway having been severed by our enemies), remain in strife untill a Messenger like Chisa Yamoda sends a message from beyond the grave... Did anyone even pay attention to SEL? Let's All Love Lain! ITT: fools who missed the plot.

>>80602 I don't think OP wanted to talk about the plot of SEL. He says that if we create artificial ubermenchs they will have a golden age beyond our imagination, which is correct. He says that since they will reproduce through technology they won't need to have sexes, which is correct. What OP fail to understand is that it is eugenism, and not the nice kind made in anglo liberal societies but the fascist kind. Good luck having even just normal incubation chambers in our societies, the entire political system wound try to destroy it. The other thing he fail to understand is that giving them a third arm will be easier than to entirely rethink how the body work. >>80569 The UN don't control soykaf. They told Israel to not kill people, Russia to get out of Ukraine and before that the US to not go in Iraq. Nobody even listen to them. The WEF does. The WEF is where the people who control the investment funds meet the presidents of all the most important countries and tell them what they have to do if they want jobs to be created in their countries and what to not do if they don't want a major investment crisis. Vote for who you like.

>>80893 Why does "Übermensch"-creation type stuff always end up having fascistic and eugenic overtones? Wasn't Nietzsche's whole point that it was someone you become by choosing the restless unknown over the comfortably accepted? Then again, fascists aren't known for their critical thinking skills. Where does this assumption of a golden age come from anyway? Most of what makes and breaks societies is the people and thinking within them. Surely it's not some essentialist property like big muscles that makes a people great, but their capacity to question, to think, and to learn, all of which are teachable? Maybe then the method to a golden age is the transformation of the system/zeitgeist into one which promotes thinking and learning instead of consumption and indoctrination? > the UN yeah. If those guys actually had any authority the world would be a much more peaceful place. Instead of a bunch of humanitarians running the world though, we got a bunch of corpos who own our governments. Obligatory fuarrrk you to Reagan and his ilk.

>>80902 >Wasn't Nietzsche's whole point that it was someone you become by choosing the restless unknown over the comfortably accepted? Then again, fascists aren't known for their critical thinking skills. Nobody "becomes" the "Übermensch". There are "flashes" of the "Übermensch" in various great figures, but the "Übermensch" is not something that is ever embodied by humanity. Nietzsche believed that mankind was a stepping stone, and not a goal. That's why he would reject things like the New Soviet Man or the Nazi view of eugenics. He was a eugenicist, but he was not a darwinist. What's more, he was explicitly critical of humanism. There is probably no political ideology more humanist than fascism. Within traditional belief systems, the "golden age" concept is more complex and is taken on belief as an alternative model of anthropology. Within the modern view, it is just utopianism and wishful thinking. Sometimes it is more honest about itself, but it seems trendy to couch it in layers of obfuscation and political ideology.

>>80904 > eugenicist but not darwinist Isn't that effectively the same thing? "Some people are undesirable, so we should do [horrible thing] to 'save' humanity"? > there is probably no ideology more humanist than fascism That's quite a statement. Care to explain? Isn't fascism about fixed-belief and dehumanizing the other? Doesn't that run contrary to humanism? Maybe I was using the wrong word and humanism is something different from what I understand, but humanization is contra fascism. Then again, I've been critical of certain kinds of humanitarianism that does lean fascistic (such as eugenics) so maybe I was using the wrong word as shorthand for "the belief that we are all people and should be treated with dignity regardless of how we look"? > golden age concept that's fair. I didn't mean to couch it in ideology and utopianism, and after all 'golden age' is always defined post-hoc. I was just speculating that there are better ways to live than pushing others down and segregating humanity into "inferiors" and "superiors", that "all boats rise with the tide" or and we can support each other's growth together. I was also criticizing the idea that "golden ages" a natural consequence of changing the shape of people. As though somehow making a person more muscular guarantees they will become a nicer person. Sometimes that's true, but it's not because of the size of their muscles but the life-path they've been on. Likewise, maybe human development isn't so much in the techonology we use but in the system we create and participate in? In the current system, it's dog-eat-dog, but maybe it doesn't always have to be?

>>80904 > Nietzsche believed that mankind was a stepping stone, and not a goal please elaborate. What is your understanding of "Thus said Zarathustra"? I understood the Übermensch to be representative of his ideal of what people should become if they "go beyond" in a deeper sense than physical changes like borgification. Suppose you could make the million dollar man, after all their robotic upgrades they may still be the antithesis of the Übermensch exactly because of either passive nihilism or the continued unquestioning embrace of what I call "the comfortably accepted", what your society tells you things must mean and must be about - myth making. That effectively, Nietzsche is asking us to go beyond accepting the "game/myth" of society that we are a part of, and to imagine beyond it - like how the rules of dodgeball seem fixed and unchanging as if given by god, until you can grow beyond it and imagine new games and new ways of play. If you need me to define anything I've said then please ask, I tend to assume posters on /hum/ are on the same continental/classical/post-modern page and are well read in philosophy.

>>80907 >Isn't that effectively the same thing? "Some people are undesirable, so we should do [horrible thing] to 'save' humanity"? No. Nietzche rejected darwinism because he believed in an alternative theory of evolution (Lamarckianism). His position was rather explicitly that people who mixed shared both their pathologies and and virtues. He openly states that the greatest and poorest people come from a mixture of contrasting cultural and ethnic backgrounds. It is the, "Tension necessary to let lose a great arrow of longing". Certain traits adopted by the individual organism are passed on according to their habits and physiology. >That's quite a statement. Care to explain? Isn't fascism about fixed-belief and dehumanizing the other? Doesn't that run contrary to humanism? Maybe I was using the wrong word and humanism is something different from what I understand, but humanization is contra fascism. Then again, I've been critical of certain kinds of humanitarianism that does lean fascistic (such as eugenics) so maybe I was using the wrong word as shorthand for "the belief that we are all people and should be treated with dignity regardless of how we look"? Gentile and Mussolini explicitly described fascism as a form of humanism. Fascism is humanist in the sense that it interprets reality itself as subordinate to the human will. Fascists had a total conviction in the right and the capability of human sentiment to influence the world. I am not saying that it is humanitarian, or that it is universalist. >>80908 The Übermensch cannot be embodied by humanity, but I am not making the case that it is embodied in some kind of "posthuman" subjectivity either. The Übermensch as an ideal is conceived as a solution to the problem of the creation of meaning. It is an end which is in a sense never realized. The free spirits which you describe may represent an aspect of the Übermensch, but do not embody the ideal itself. You never look at someone or something and say, "This is the Übermensch". This is important, because the process of pursuing the ideal of the Übermensch necessitates "unter-gehen" and a sacrifice. "Go under and make way way for the over-man!" To paraphrase Nietzsche.

>>80910 > no, lamarckianism I wasn't aware of the historical context surrounding Nietzsche, thanks for enlightening me! > He openly states that the greatest and poorest people come from a mixture of contrasting cultural and ethnic backgrounds. It is the, "Tension necessary to let lose a great arrow of longing". > the Übermensch cannot be embodied by humanity, but it is not a post-human being either That's really interesting. So he took a sort of lamarckian eugenics that encouraged an intermixing of backgrounds to create the conditions necessary for pursuing the ideal of the Übermensch, and that Übermensch isn't reachable or a particular person or kind of person but rather a direction in which we head so that we may evolve through strife and overcoming and sacrifice, to "go under" and seek our own "destruction" in a sense? And so free spirits and these acts of "active nihilism" are simply stepping stones towards the ideal but do not embody or realize it? > Gentile and Mussolini define fascism as... To be fair, ideologies aren't the sort of thing that's even truly been reflected by their definitions, especially by those who benefit to give it a nice look. Of course Mussolini would promote it as a form of humanism. > reality subordinate to the human will Oh, okay I get what you mean now. That reflects what I understand it to be. > nhot humanitarian, not universalist Is that what you would call the belief I was describing? Thanks for clarifying. Sometimes these terms can get a bit muddy. I mistook humanism for universalist/humanitarian/whatever I was describing. Thanks for posting lain. You're a breath of fresh air.

>>80893 I think the thing they hate about eugenics is the fear of being killed for being 'subhuman'. The goal here is to make nice people, who are committed to making an even better sexless world of course, but also who are nice to outsiders. Most left wingers are 'pro immigrant,' And like cute kids, so long as they don't have to take care of them. >>80902 >Maybe then the method to a golden age is the transformation of the system/zeitgeist into one which promotes thinking and learning instead of consumption and indoctrination The problem is that so long as we're in competition, and not seeing the real effects of ideas we hold, indoctrination which is most fit wins, either by selecting against those who do not follow it, or by tricking us into thinking it's good for us. I totally agree overall though, and there are small steps towards this society like encouraging knowledge of science and evolution, or fighting against good outside of emotional experience, which get us ready for bigger steps, like artificial wombs and a unified life experience. Even language was a huge step in giving us a longer memory as to what memes are doing to us, and feeling each other's emotions, and allowed us to conquer nature's cruelty, no longer being prey animals.

>>80908 In the antichrist he says a few times that it is a book for the superman, who is not yet born. That's all of his I've read. I'm not who you're replying to, but it sounds right. I got the impression the superman was free of slave morality, and hyper rational and scientific, and may indeed one day exist, but I listened to an audiobook smdh. >>80911 >>80910 What mature and intelligent behavior, both of you. great job!

>>80915 Disclaimer: This isn't for *you* specifically, it's more of a generalization that I've noticed.. >I think the thing they hate about eugenics is the fear of being killed for being 'subhuman'. Well, people tend to fear what they don't understand. It's odd to me that they fear this, considering "eugenics" doesn't explicitly have anything to do with killing anyone. At its core, its just about removing undesirable traits and producing higher quality people. This can come in the form of selective breeding programs to get rid of certain illnesses or just controlling the food habits of pregnant women to produce higher quality offspring (For example, some n higher birthweight tends to be half a STD deviation higher IQ) -- The fact that many people who oppose eugenics tend to only do so because "murder" shows that they're very small minded people. You don't need to murder anyone to practice eugenics. Hell, sterilization (at worst) can be applied for such things to allow the individual(s) to live out their live without being a plague on humanity's future... But again, it's not really required to do this. Frankly, several prominant eugenicists actually prefered the "elite" style of eugenics that allows plebians to breed as they normally do, while simply suggesting better breeding habits -- That is to say, it was optional to the lower class. (See: The SS compared to the general population, as an example.) I understand there's some instances of this aspect in history, but that's the not really what eugenics is about, even in the slightest. It's just... really weird that someone can feel so strongly about something while having absolutely no understanding of what it is. I'm not saying you need to become an expert, but the cartoonish villain soykaf should probably be an indicator that you don't know the whole plot.

>>80918 I didn't mean to imply eugenics actually means killing, It's just that people (rightly or wrongly) associate it with mass violence, and supporting it with being attacked, so it makes them nervous, while they don't care enough about others to sacrifice themselves for it. I think trying to practice eugenics on those you don't benefit from is not sustainable, since it is a positive externality, like giving food to others. I use the example of charity here, because it clearly is sustainable under certain circumstances, but I don't understand them, so I think it's best to go with simpler systems I somewhat understand. In the same way, I think eugenics is best practiced in small groups, as we see for instance in some families optimizing epigenetics of their children by providing good conditions in the womb, and then this behavior strengthening the family, and repeating again. Hopefully, artificial wombs and perhaps artificial chemical bonding with all the group's children(if possible) will begin a path towards sustainable eugenics which doesn't seem to have panned out as efficiently in our current world, while still not making people afraid. I hope I'm not treating eugenics as a cartoonish villain.

Great, another bozo who thinks he has all the answers! You have no idea what you're wishing for. And I don't know you but it's safe to assume your a hypocrite with no backbone to own up to the sinister actions required for such a vision or admit you were wrong in the first place. For god's sake at least do it with a cool aesthetic and not some glitterboy f4gg0try.

>>80923 i rather wet my bed than having a gf, also i planned to modify my dna structure since day one

>>80926 Just eating healthier and having a healthier lifestyle modifies your epigenetics.

>>80927 This. If you really want to transgress human nature that's satanism which is why I bring up sinister action. Even then unless you have a healthy lifestyle to begin with you still wont be anything greater than human the same way the mass of "humans" tend to be dumber than what we consider animals. True development cannot be cheated. You must become an alpha male among alpha males to even have a chance (sorry for using normal user vernacular). It takes time and commitment. I suggest doing something that forces a radical lifestyle change; go homeless on purpose, start doing parkour or urban exploration, move to another state, go camping without any technology for a couple weeks, etc. - Or if you're not up for it just admit you were wrong. PS I personally believe the answer lies in awareness. Fear is awareness, it helps us navigate dangerous situations, and be self aware too. Don't let it paralyze you or lull you into complacency. If you can break through the initial shock and carry out your deed knowing full well the consequences, then you have taken the first step. You must be aware of both the dark and light energy in you. You must accept that as a human you're both good and evil to some extent, so strive to be both to the maximum extent.

>>80940 read paradise lost. be sigma or omega instead. > You must accept that as a human you're both good and evil to some extent, clearly you dont know about praying mantis manting and how it correlates with human normal people. self destruction is the way

>>80941 Whatever bro same soykaf

>>80940 >>80941 If you're not sigma you're not skibidi enough to be alpha omega gigasigma, how can you chad on the haters if you don't assert your megamasculinity and testostrogen by doing MAN MAN things like growing beard and soykafting in street? Stop the effeminism you homos, time for the mega-masculine men to be men the good old way of our ancestors like eating animal testicles! LSo alpha, so skibidi! Fear me women, for I am man man!

>>80915 >>80918 It's not fear for my own sake or fear of the unknown or any of that soykaf. It's an awareness of history and where eugenics has and always will lead because of the way that history rhymes with itself. If you have the idea in your head that some people are more/less worthy of living than others, it doesn't take a lot to reach the conclusion that some people shouldn't be allowed to live/reproduce. Eugenics has always been about promoting atrocities under the guise of social good. It shouldn't be a crime to exist, because people are people. > considering "eugenics" doesn't explicitly have anything to do with killing anyone Sure, so does a public figure using language to dehumanize a group of people as a threat to society, but it doesn't take a genius to realize where that language leads. It always starts with linguistic dehumanization and ends with genocide. It you can't see that, you're either a fool or a liar. > at it's core it's about removing undesirable traits More than the crap eugenics lead to, is my hatred for how fuarrrking retarded it's entire premise is. Evolution isn't about "good" and "bad" traits, it's about traits that might or might not be helpful in different contexts. Instead eugenicists apply moral value to traits that in the eyes of nature aren't good or bad or anything, but just different. What's more, once you start studying biology past a high school level and learn about systems like the waddington landscape instead of being stuck with borderline pseudoscience bullshit like mendel's model, then it becomes blindingly obvious that genetics is a complex cascade of not just genes but environmental factors, social factors, and more. You realize that things like intelligence, obesity, and more have a lot more to do with environmental factors like access to education and nutrition than genes (considering gene "activation" is contextual). You start to realize that selecting for a "desirable" trait has inadvertent consequences. You realize that "undesirable" traits have beneficial relations to other genes. Consider sickle cell trait (not to be confused with sickle cell anemia). This trait happens to be common in populations throughout the malaria belt, because it just so happens that sickle cell trait reduces the chances of contracting malaria. Great right? Let's give everyone sickle cell trait, better mankind, eradicate malaria right? Wrong! While it has a benefit in that context, the tradeoff is that you're at risk if you fly or dive of minor acute symptoms and under certain contexts it can develop into sickle cell anemia. Or consider ERAP2, which confers a higher risk of autoimmune disorders, but which increased the likelyhood or surviving the black death by 40%! Traits are complex, context-dependent, and environmentally induced. There's no such thing as a "good/desirable" trait or a "bad/undesirable" trait, just different traits with their own tradeoffs. Life just works. As long as it doesn't kill you, every trait is not a bug but a feature. Maturity is realizing that there aren't "good" and "bad" genes, just different genes. A genetically uniform/"desirable" humanity is a doomed one in bottleneck events. And Maturity is realizing that Eugenics has and always will be a very retarded idea. Thanks for coming to my ted talk! > opposing eugenics is small minded That's ironic considering the kind of people who often promote it. Eugenicists often see the world as boxes to place "desirables" and "undesirables" into, a pathology of black-and-white thinking and oversimplification to make the world easier to fit into their head, also known as being small-minded. Further, the people who promote these ideas even if with truly good intentions in mind are doing so from a place of misguided ignorance about the actual mechanisms and nature of biology and evolution, and often with social darwinist ideas either intentionally or accidentally. Of course, all roads of eugenics ultimately lead to the same ends. Such as forced sterilization in the US, and genocide in Germany. > sterilization can be applied for such things to allow the individual to live out their live without being a plague on humanity's future > without being a plague on humanity's future > (some people are) a plague on humanity's future > "at it's core [eugenics] is about removing undesirables" You're proving me right lain. You started your rant talking about how eugenics isn't out to harm and then near the end it's about getting rid of undesirables through "humane" acts like forced sterilization, which is genocidal thinking. I could keep going. Every policy idea of eugenicists like you promotes cruel maltreatment of people for being in the "wrong" box based on things they had no choice about. While it may not explicitly ask for genocide or more obviously immoral acts, it's only a stones throw away from that. Please think carefully the next time you want to promote a dogsoykaf idea like eugenics.

>>80918 Currently, western society seems to be dominated by global alliances and democratic initiatives which make appeals to general human interests. But I think it is impossible for them to eradicate eugenics, so I would not be concerned. There is a difference between a concept and its application. Even if they censor the concept from being discussed or proposed openly, the application of eugenics will still occur. If we consider something like abortion, which the liberal democratic society is likely to endorse, certain traits are selected out in the process. The presumption of the humanist is that these valuations are entirely arbitrary. Unfortunately for them, their own valuation of eugenics is itself at least as arbitrary. If you believe in eugenics, there is a sense in which there is really no impetus to do anything. It's not like you personally have that much influence on the outcome of it. Why even bother engaging in the dialectic? It is the progressive moral idealists who are worried, because they believe that the development of ideas and history is shaped by human will and so they are disturbed by not being a part of the conversation. They feel the need to establish democratic agreement. But is it even worth it for you? Not really. Have a little faith.

>>80947 > It is the progressive moral idealists who are worried mind defining what a "progressive moral idealist" is exactly? That just sounds like a junk catch-all political buzzword like "communist" and "liberal". > disturbed by not being part of "the conversation" surely they're more disturbed by the kind of activities that are engaged in by eugenicists, so much that they consider it morally objectionable and worth fighting against? > But I think it is impossible for them to eradicate eugenics you can't kill an idea, that's true. still, does that mean an idea like this is worth pursuing? wisdom would insist it's not.

>>80923 Sure, I know I'm at least a little wrong, but if you don't try things which appear to be more correct, you won't make any progress at all! Yeah, it's sad that any achievement in this world of limited resources takes away from others, but I'm trying to fix that. Yeah I'm going to hurt people on the way there, but far, far less than is done by a world of individuals scrambling over each other trying to be happy. The cute aesthetic is fun. glitterboy comes from the word for burden. Is my aesthetic truly burensome? I support sustainable birth rates and providing high quality support for people, and am directly working towards that. Meanwhile corporate masculinity these days is about useless posturing and thoughtlessness, and old style will get you arrested and hurt those you love. Time to move on to the new coolness! >>80926 Very based, shoot me a message! >>80927 very true but you can get larger yields (and larger risks) going in directly. I'm not a pro with this, it's going to be a gradual thing, only making interventions for very clear cut things, going bigger as we get better. >>80940 >If you really want to transgress human nature that's satanism It might be that we're working with different definitions here, but I have to imagine there are parts of our nature you're against, like the desire to rape for instance, apathy towards children in need, or joy in others' suffering. >You must become an alpha male among alpha males to even have a chance (sorry for using normal user vernacular). It takes time and commitment. I suggest doing something that forces a radical lifestyle change; go homeless on purpose, start doing parkour or urban exploration, move to another state, go camping without any technology for a couple weeks, etc. - Or if you're not up for it just admit you were wrong. There's an element of truth in this which makes it a very dangerous lie. I actually bought into this for a time and did live in the woods so as not to be part of a world of hurting others. It didn't fix anything. I also spent time trying to be super effective and hating myself for low productivity. This also doesn't work. Most radical lifestyle changes, like most radical genetic mutations, are very bad for you. If you have good evidence for a lifestyle change, you should try it a little, and look at the results, modifying as you go. Otherwise, stick to little pieces every day and a supportive environment. You also don't need ultra high status. This is a lie told by media which confuses us. Many of our ancestors were serfs. So long as you can work with others, push things just a little bit further, and pass this on after your death, sustaining it, you win! This has been demonstrated many times- look at any modern army for instance. Not heroes, but many good little ants, taking good enough care of themselves every day. Also 'good' and 'evil' are ideas in your head, and evil is things I don't like, so no, I accept I will always be somewhat someone I don't like, but I work to minimize that, and pay the price of being a little evil to unlock the most good. >>80945 The Olympians actually did eat rooster testes and it worked! kek, but to be honest if being extremely male was a great way to change the world, we'd have a duty to do so. At certain times in history this is the correct behavior, it's just brain damaged to do it today.

If you're against eugenics you're a hypocrite. I don't think anyone is trying to apply morality to it because it's simply nature. The things that change the world; revolution, war, politics etc inevitably leads to some form of death to those who oppose the order you're trying to impose. But leftists have this incessant mindset that when they do it it's somehow different. For them it's "preemptive self defense" because they identify their opposition as a threat, as if the rule doesn't go both ways. Nothing disgusts me more than people who dismiss the darker side of humanity, especially those who think they're somehow not a part of it. >>80949 >Meanwhile corporate masculinity these days is about useless posturing and thoughtlessness Yeah cuz "corporate masculinity" is fake masculinity. Being true to your sex is important for self awareness though. >I have to imagine there are parts of our nature you're against, like the desire to rape for instance, apathy towards children in need, or joy in others' suffering. No the opposite actually. I'm saying if you want to become some sort of superhuman you will need to commit heinous acts that violate any reasonable person's morality and insult creation itself. I'm not blaming you if you want to take this path or I'd be a hypocrite. But the door is always open to opt-out and still live a normal life. If you want to pretend it's somehow a virtuous act I genuinely hate you though. >Most radical lifestyle changes, like most radical genetic mutations, are very bad for you Thats why I talked about fear and awareness. You're edging your way up the cliff of a mountain and the slightest slip up or wrong move will send you spiraling out of control - I know I have a few times by now. If the world is a casino you need to rig it in your favor. What's important about these things like living innawoods for a few weeks is that you gain new experience and a wider perspective. It allows you to expand your sense of awareness. Which in turn will affect your development. >You also don't need ultra high status ... So long as you can work with others, push things just a little bit further, and pass this on after your death, sustaining it, you win Then it would be nothing more than a cult, at the weaker end at that.

>>80951 >The things that change the world; revolution, war, politics etc inevitably leads to some form of death to those who oppose the order you're trying to impose. But leftists have this incessant mindset that when they do it it's somehow different Sadly, it's not just leftists. It's literally how our minds work- us hurting others which doesn't trigger our feelings of guilt means no one's getting hurt. If you ever talk to a rightist who is truly thriving, and surrounded by fellow rightists, they'll say they aren't being bad to their enemies, but their enemies are just bad and deserve to get hurt. The only solution to this is to feel what others feel, so you don't conclude your enemies' suffering is some silly thing. >I'm saying if you want to become some sort of superhuman you will need to commit heinous acts that violate any reasonable person's morality and insult creation itself. I'd say if you want to exist at all you need to do so- by being anyone, you are destroying incomprehensible amounts of other people you could be, and by using the slightest resource, you deny quite a few others. Eating meat for instance is rather insanely cruel, but seemingly currently necessary until we see super effective vegans. I think you're wrong to personify creation here. The good part of creating things comes not from things existing, but our reaction to them, so it's justified to destroy so long as it serves greater happiness- an example: learning to walk as a child was abandoning what you knew and the safety of control and being close to the ground, but now walking is great. >If you want to pretend it's somehow a virtuous act I genuinely hate you though. I'm going to say it's a virtuous act for me. Yes, history shows that all these virtuous acts were built on the suffering of others, which makes it somewhat disgusting, but when you consider the individual perspectives, many people did indeed have beauty and joy in their lives from the 'virtuous' acts they did. Virtue clearly can be an amazing thing on the individual level, it's just that when we have different feelings, we can't build a virtue between people, because we call virtue that which is good for us, not others. But our feelings our somewhat shared. I cannot know what others feel, so I can't say with surety if anything is virtuous for everyone, but things like rule of law and writing for instance are more virtuous than not, though still build on the suffering of some, they help many of us. As we unify people more and more, the pool of sufferers decreases, and with it, the virtue comes to exist more though today the virtue of anything we do cannot be too universal, given all those who lose out when we win. >Being true to your sex is important for self awareness though. Some sexual instincts are suppressed by everyone to great benefit, for instance the instinct shared in both sexes to not scare those you care about helps me not chase after and frighten females, due to my male instincts, and most other males do the same. I would say every instinct and thought we have should be manipulated so as to bring us a happy life, building towards a happier life for everyone, but that since some manipulations expend huge resources, some thoughts and instincts which we would be better without must be accepted and managed optimally, such as the need for joy and rest, even when the future self would be far far happier if we could grind incredibly hard now, and enjoy the fruits later. This acceptance is often wise, but it doesn't mean all our sexual traits are indeed useful, and once technology arrives which will help us overcome our unfortunate traits, we should happily use it, but focus on other productive things, such as developing the technology til then. "You also don't need ultra high status ... So long as you can work with others, push things just a little bit further, and pass this on after your death, sustaining it, you win: >Then it would be nothing more than a cult, at the weaker end at that. I thought that was one of my strongest quotes, as I said about sex, here too the best thing is to get the best you can out of life, and keep improving things, rather than reaching for what cannot be, or failing to change anything. As you said 'rigging the casino'- not just trying to have all the money immediately. The key is positive expected return on investment. Can you tell me what makes cults this low thing, and why my quote is part of that? It's horrible when people end up living terrible lives for ideas, including ideas of 'good' social roles', if that's what you're pointing to, but humans are social creatures, and I think working with others for future humans and each other is a wonderful thing. I'm proudly a cultist of that, and if a weak one, I would be far, far weaker if I did not do so. >What's important about these things like living innawoods for a few weeks is that you gain new experience and a wider perspective. It allows you to expand your sense of awareness. Which in turn will affect your development. VERY true. Had I not done so I would still have doubt choking my acitons on this matter.I think the world would be a much better place if every time someone thought of an idea, they actually tried to live it. It was a good experience for me, and trying to build angelmorphy will teach me its failures if nothing else. I guess if you believe in something else, I'd encourage you to go build it, if I can't convince you of what I think is the primary solution to our problems, If you want to share what you're doing, I'd be happy to hear it.

>>80951 >>81023 What a miserable, misanthropic, and nihilistic view of the world :( Are you alright lains? Do you need someone to talk to? Need a hug to remind you that life is about more than some fascistic idea of eternal conflict, to help you escape the naturalistic fallacy of violence? I can’t imagine how sad the world must be if everything is about some social darwinist idea of might makes right. It’s the mentality of hurt people who want to hurt people.

>>81026 i want hug and more cans of monster energy

>>81026 they say as they plunge a dagger into your throat

>>81026 I really, really would lain. Every time I work on trying to unite everyone, or really work on anything, I get upset, I think because I've been rejected so much, and failed to get that feeling of mattering or having others like myself who I can relax around. Your post helped me understand this a little more, and relieved some of the constant tension with a good cry, and I thank you for that. So what do you think makes you so positive? What do I need to understand? How can I become like you? Do you think we could still work towards joining everyone's incentives and information while having your world view?

>>81023 >Sadly, it's not just leftists. It's literally how our minds work- us hurting others which doesn't trigger our feelings of guilt means no one's getting hurt. I mean leftists have a tendency to redefine everything to fit within their worldview. Theories of anarchist societies include "community patrols" to replace cops and a "community council" to replace the government. And the political order is often cult-like but based on personality, North Korea for example. Same soykaf, different name. It inevitably leads to the same results. And like any utopian ideology it would take the mass death of most of the population to even be realistic. - "But fascism is when genocide!!!" The difference is rightists are at least willing to own up to it, not for some utopian paradise that will never exist. Just for a better tomorrow. >so it's justified to destroy so long as it serves greater happiness Happiness is just an emotion. It's subjective and finite. Truth is eternal. >it's just that when we have different feelings, we can't build a virtue between people, because we call virtue that which is good for us Again, you're basing your morality on something subjective. For me conflict ends when there is a common understanding. Good thing emotions are easy to manipulate and if this is how your cult operates you're in for a hell of a ride haha, might get you a high rank in the OTO :) >Some sexual instincts are suppressed by everyone to great benefit I would say there is no "unfortunate traits". It simply comes down to how you express them. You can chase women by being a creep in the park or charming at a party. I see where you're coming from though and having the awareness of you're sexual instincts are important in manipulating them in a productive way. Thus my point. >Can you tell me what makes cults this low thing, and why my quote is part of that? The goal of any cult should be to conquer the world. This is how pagan societies survived. This is what Christianity was 2000 years ago. This is what Aum Shinrikyo or Manson's Family was and many others like it. Cults are to the world order what sperm is to men - one out of a million will survive. You need some serious teeth and devotion to even have a chance. >Had I not done so I would still have doubt choking my acitons on this matter.I think the world would be a much better place if every time someone thought of an idea, they actually tried to live it. Respect. I know it seems like I'm being super critical but I am interested. Is there a way I can contact you? >>81026 Ok, you're actually different and I appreciate you for that :) But no, the tides of eternal struggle define the world. I do believe fascism - the worldview of nature - is the path to a better future. You can't defeat evil if you don't understand it. You can't enforce your morality onto society if you don't transgress it. Much like a lie grows like cancer and consumes everything that is natural, you can spread truth to remedy it but the problem will persist if you don't strike at the source. If a comrade has a deadly infection in his arm, would you not amputate it so he can live despite causing him massive pain? And I don't want to hurt people just because I'm suffering :) >>81031 lmao >>81032 He's being partially dishonest bro. Notice the "to help you escape the naturalistic fallacy of violence" (give up and lie to yourself that everything is okay)

>>81033 >I mean leftists have a tendency to redefine everything to fit within their worldview. >Now here is things I've redefined to fit my world view. There is different views among different ideologies. Especially when talking actual leftists, they have a lot of different views on different things. For example I've also heard of some anarchists being for a return to beck and call, which in such situation someone calls for help and any near by persons helps them instead of standing around like idiots. I don't think it's ideal setup by itself alone since not everyone is up for the task but it's still different from police forces because the ones who police are no different from any other citizen not their own class above the law. Some also oppose prisons and instead are more for people just trying to make amends for what they did toward the victims or for being exiled neither of which is prison. Really dividing politics between left and right isn't very useful because it's more complicated than that. Not that this thread has anything to do with politics to begin with. Transhumanism is different from eugenics because it generally involves self changes rather than reproduction limits or eliminating certain people, it has similarities but it's still different. Modifying genes to say eliminate serious disease even of babies is still different than saying certain people should not even reproduce. Stop politicizing everything and making assumptions >>80951

>>81035 Yes I'm aware that the left-right spectrum is too simplistic. I often take a third-positionist stance. I'm just saying this pattern is universal among the left to re-invent the wheel for evils they're supposedly against. I'm not even necessarily a traditionalist either. >Transhumanism is different from eugenics because it generally involves self changes rather than reproduction limits or eliminating certain people I never drew a connection between these in my post but I'd say there's an overlap. The point about eugenics is that it's universal. In any society there will be a minority that is naturally purged because that society was not made for them. A modern example being the homelessness rates in America - people that just can't keep up and are left to fend for themselves. >Stop politicizing everything and making assumptions It was political before I got here :(

>>80946 I've only posted once in this thread, Lainon. Just to be clear. I want to point out some things about what you said: You're presupposing things and building off an idea that I haven't expounded on. You're generalizing, while complaining about generalizing. You're making digs as often as possible, attempting to demean and minimize, but you haven't any basis to do so. ]>neurosuggesting I'm a eugenicists Well, you failed to acknowledge my discussion about eugenics. Am I a eugenicists? No, not really. But you sure jumped right to that conclusion. Didn't you? You'd likely feel a bit embarassed, but I get the impression that an idealogue can't really feel embarassed, they tend to only respond with outbursts and other polemics-based nonsense. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hard to give anyone the benefit of the doubt that it's not just constant political debate and that we can't discuss or entertain concepts without having to either fully-accept them or constantly condemn them. It gets in the way. >opposing eugenics is small minded This isn't what I said. I said a very specific type of reasoning, in the opposition of eugenics, is small minded. They failed to look into the foundations of what it is they're arguing against. That's small minded, regardless of subject matter. Do you disagree? What about in my defining of the various subsets of eugenics? No, you wouldn't know anything of that, would you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I tend to assume people who respond in this manner to only understand the caricature of what you oppose. Strawmanning, I guess, might be a better way to put it. You can, obviously, disagree with eugenics, but the reasoning behind your disagreement with eugenics is the factor that determines your "small-mindedness." >black-and-white thinking This is an ironic statement, considering what you're doing. >Maturity is realizing that Eugenics has and always will be a very retarded idea "Maturity" is a social construct, but more than that, obsession with "maturity" is generally a "childish" notion. "Maturity" is realizing that people think things for different reasons and it tends to be best to seek an understanding rather than to attack it, because if you simply go off and attack it, people tend to double down. >You're proving me right lain Nothing was "proving you right" -- You started out with a presupposition and built off that. You came away with what you set out to come away with simply by reading things in such a way that you could only come out correct, a tautology if you will. In reality, nothing occurred, except assholery and a lower quality rant about nothing. Do you disagree? >it's about getting rid of undesirables through "humane" acts like forced sterilization Re-read what I wrote. All the way through. Don't skim, read it. Here I'll highlight it for you: >Hell, sterilization (at worst) can be applied for such things to allow the individual(s) to live out their live without being a plague on humanity's future... But again, it's not really required to do this. Note the context: I'm talking about the application of eugenics, not my support for it, but merely the application of it. Then I state, at the end there -- again in the context of the application of eugenics historically -- : "it's not really required to do this." Do you really not understand what I'm saying here? Genuinely? That's an actual question, this isn't rhetoric. Nothing I'm saying here is rhetorical, I don't want people to become eugenicists, the average idiot couldn't apply it correctly even if it were a flawless system with no potential hiccups or backfires. I'm not going to go over these made up scenarios that attempt to paint me in a bad light and all this soykaf, because they don't even properly represent my stance, statements, or otherwise.

>>80544 I’m back! How about >>81033 ? > I do believe fascism - the worldview of nature - is the path to a better future. Do you believe me now? /hum/ has real fascists, which is tragic considering what cyberpunk is supposed to stand for. I forgot why I came back but I’m regretting it already. Bye!

>>81031 You need to learn to trust people more lain. Not every act of kindness is some trick. What is the meme? “I have no enemies”? >>81032 It’s not some manifesto or dialectic or whatever the fuarrrk people over-intellectualize politics into. It’s just a lived observation that people have a lot of capacity for good and compassion that’s supressed by all these war-like mentalities making each other each’s enemy. We can be optimistic and idealistic and make a better world by lifting each other up and supporting each other, by being kind to one another. Everyone is so lonely today, most internet relationships are conditional and antagonistic, so it’s natural that most would conclude that love is some fiction or pie in the sky idea. We feel less bad about hurting others if we believe they would have hurt us anyways. We’re all being put into a warlike state of endless antagonism and hatred, trying to feel superior by putting others down, but I know there’s a different way. None of us are perfect, but violence begets violence, and I think it’s time we chose to break the cycle. It starts with the healing milk and honey of love and kindness. Support for one another, compassion and empathy, love and kindness. All boats rise with the tide, we don’t need to make our lives some hellish nightmare of endless violence and cruelty to one another. We don’t need to keep adding bricks to the wall. So lets live in harmony doing good to one another and truly loving one another. I guess the best I’ll be able to summarize is “this land is made of love and peace”

>>81032 Full transparency. I’m not entirely sure myself how to unite people or form larger social communities. I’m still learning. I used to be a misanthrope because I was rejected all the time and felt like I didn’t matter, that the nature of people was one of kill or be killed, which spurred me to respond in the first place. It’s hard to find people you can trust enough to be yourself around, or to find people much at all. The process of my ongoing transformation was one over many years so I’d need to sit down and reflect on it. I’ll try to give a cliff notes from my phone here since I think it matters if I can give some hint that might help you. I think it started with realizing that your value as a person is intrinsic, realizing a feeling of sonder (that every person is a person like me, that everyone has a whole life I’m only glimpsing as complex as my own), and that every stranger is a friend I haven’t met yet. It took a long process of embracing myself for what I am, of getting out of my social anxiety bubble by forcing myself into situations I was unfamiliar and uncomfortable with (but progressively going from very small things to public presentations to overcome the fear of people through exposure), the good fortune of meeting a few good people and kind acts and remembering those, doing regular processes pf improvement I enjoyed and that gave me confidence in my ability to face challenges (like gym, programming) (gym especially was good because it’s letting me be around people, ask people fof help, common interest in fitness, asking and learning from others. A kind of community microdosing). There’s probably key moments in my life that had a profound impact, I just know these are some of the realizations that helped me come out of my shell. I’m not perfect, I don’t need to be. And through my little failures I grow and learn, and through the people I meet the world becomes a little bigger. I hope this helps. Have a nice day.

>>81064 > normal people are animals > take advantage of people I’m so sorry that you feel that way lain, and I hope you can grow past it someday. There’s much more to life than sex, power, and money. I couldn’t take advantage of others because that would be hurting others. I know that people are more than animals, because I know you are more than that. People are people.

>>81062 Lainchan has had a problem of outsiders from 8chan that came in when it shut down. That is why there is all these filters trying to keep them away. Their soykaf posts just need to be reported whenever spotted for being extreme low quality and derailment among other reasons they constantly break every rule.

>>81063 >trust people on an anonymous image board You can only trust yourself and close friends. True friends are rare. I guarantee you this person wouldn't put himself at stake if the risk / reward was high enough. >>81065 >I’m not entirely sure myself how to unite people or form larger social communities It should be self evident but first you must accept there's a darker side of humanity. >>81066 >I’m sorry that you feel that way Lmfao >There’s much more to life than sex, power, and money ~ give up and tell yourself everything is okay ~ >I couldn’t take advantage of others because that would be hurting others Until you have to operate in society. "But I'm not directly hurting anyone, it's different!"

>>81066 shut up , i hate mother nature, she is a sadistic bitch. i will always spit in her face and i will always cut a tree for xmas <3

>>81069 lol, the hell you live in was all made by humans.

>>81077 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArjlPAU_X4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os3OBJSlpUc your blindness will be your demise.

>>80946 >Eugenics has always been about promoting atrocities under the guise of social good. Eugenism is about doing to humans what we have done to every other biological things we use. Do you think wheat and corn are fat and grow easily because God or Gaia gave it to us that way or because we selected the best crops for 5000 years? Do you think the original horses were strong enough to carry a man? Those horses are barely 3000 year old. Eugenism is about making each new human generation better than the previous so at the end, humanity will be free from most diseases, live 200 years and be a lot more capable to move humanity forward. Nothing say we must torture the bottom of the barrel or gas millions of people. Do you think being prone to violence and having a high impulsivity is an undesirable trait, yes or not? Do you think a predisposition to easily think abstractly, to imagine the chains of causes and consequences and to accept delayed reward are positive, yes or not? Face it, you are an eugenicist too, you just force yourself to accept moral values that you have been told would work. >Genetic illnesses are not a trait but a feature You remind me of those Chrisitans who insist that kids with leukemia are part of God's perfect plan. It's a crime to not prevent preventable diseases and the genetic ones can be prevented. The blood of all those kids are on your hand and it's the only fruit of your artificial moral values.

>>81166 It's true, eugenics work in principle. If anybody disagrees with that, take it up with Richard Dawkins. But the major flaw is not about whether artificial selection works or not but about how to implement it in a sensible way. Since who's going to make the decisions about who passes or not? And quantify the traits which are preferable over those which need to be discouraged? How human civilization is set up currently we would likely end up with a bunch of bureaucrats effectively selecting for attributes that would yield even more bureaucrat types while possibly leading to any creative types to go extinct. And while latter is often a liability it's also those people who keep humanity from stagnating and getting its head out of its ass. And without that we might as well get hit by a meteorite since humanity is most likely done at that point. Then there's your assumption that if an eugenics program gets implemented then it's automatically going to be about selecting for physical and cognitive performance as opposed to things like obedience and meekness. People who're just smart enough to operate the machines and even conduct scientific research but too stupid and docile to ask too many uncomfortable and disruptive questions. And from the looks of it it's what's currently being attempted with europe's mass migration influx and america's melting pot. >inb4 muh right wing conspiracy theory Simply look up what Richard Kalergi proposed as the man of the future who will be of mixed eurasian-negroid race. And I get it, if I was a member of the current ruling class then I'd probably prefer the masses to be of this sort while myself having an easier time to rule over them. Probably being likewise so delusional from that amount of power that the eugenics for my kin would only go as so far as to evaluate how much I consider them of the same blue blood as I. Leading to the typical degeneration of a mature aristocracy due to a heavily constrained genetic pool. This would leave us with a dumbed down population ruled by genetic freaks, none of which capable to bring humanity to explore the stars but instead effectively put a lid on this species until it just fizzles out in an ideocracy. The most promising attempt was done by the nazis who had as the ideal the nietzschean uberman who is superior in both strength and intellect but even that program was flawed in its execution thus it may be for the better that their failure soiled the idea of eugenics for the time being. The best we have as of now is our current social darvinism even if it yields way too many psychopaths. Our goal should be thus to improve probabilities of beneficial traits to proliferate. That's the best we can do. Be it solely for avoiding the mistake of causing irreparable damage to humanity's genetic diversity.

>>81168 Your criticisms of Eugenics is a good addition to my point. Even accepting the premise of Eugenics it would ultimately just end in either a very uniform and incompetent humanity with low genetic diversity or something like the 2-species mess in "The Time Machine". Either way humanity will become like baked clay, brittle and stagnant - unchanging, and will ultimately fizzle out or nearly/completely go extinct. Otherwise, I disagree with the rest (but you already knew that). >>81166 Effectively, >>81168 kind of gets it a bit. If you read my explanation on genomics you would understand that beyond an ethical concern with Eugenics is the practical problem that what defines a "desirable" trait comes down to arbitrary cultural whims. Traits are often trade-offs, so you won't get everything you want. Traits aren't simple either, often a complex system of interconnected genes, environmental factors and pressures, and more. BUT, even pretending the faulty assumption of 1-trait-1-gene, and that Eugenics could work, the end result of it would be a painfully uniform and stagnant humanity that might as well go extinct. That's even ignoring the fact that many traits either are activated by environmental factors, or are nearly entirely environmentally determined. Even if you could make Eugenics work, it would still not work because there's a lot of things about you that have little to do with your genes and lots to do with your conditions growing up, even with traits that have a strong genetic correlation. But your dunning-kreuger ass is going to try and pretend otherwise, because that makes the world simpler. > Eugenism is about making each new human generation better Which sounds great on paper. Of course, the reality isn't nearly so Utopian, and definitely not as black-and-white unambiguous and direct as you're hoping. What specifically is better? The core problem of Eugenics is that traits aren't better or worse, but contextual - and that many traits aren't the consequence of genes alone. What is "better" comes down to cultural preferences that like fashion sense changes every couple of decades. Even in the same decade, Eugenicists can't always agree on what is "desirable" because what is "desirable" isn't an objective measure, but a cultural preference disguising itself behind pseudo-scientific "objectivity". Culture changes, like the ideal male body type and traits in the USA have changed drastically in just the past 100 years. And even between societies that exist today, what defines a "desirable" trait differs. You can pretend all you want that it's as simple as selecting the right genes sans environment and the million other factors at play in making you turn out the way you do. And what's more, people are never as they seem. Plenty have flopped IQ tests and gone on to become professors, janitors get overlooked because "janitors are dumb" yet right now one is an important physicist. Even people we would usually conclude as "stupid/feebleminded" based on their behaviour like that Tyler1 guy, can go on to reach really high ELO in Chess. Often, you're just guessing who is "desirable" based on a fixed view of people's "traits" and what are "desirable" based on arbitrary cultural bullshit. It would be like throwing away every book that has a cover you don't like. You're throwing away the diversity of genes and their multitute abilities based on arbitrary measures of what makes one book "good" or another "bad". You'd like to believe you have it "figured out" on what is a "good" trait, but you don't and you're only fooling yourself if you think you do. > Nothing say we must torture the bottom of the barrel or gas millions of people. I don't have to ask anyone to kill a guy, I just have to convince them that the guy doesn't deserve to live - "Can't blame me officer, I only told them he's better off dead, never asked them to kill him." You're very obtuse if you can't see the issue. If a group of people are a "burden on society", then why would people want then around? If you're "tainting the gene pool" with your existence, then you'll be removed from it one way or the other, and often that arrives at killing them in the worst case, or torturing them by treating them like second class citizens in the best case. > genetic illnesses are a feature Evolution doesn't care about your preferences for an "ideal" society or your cultural concepts of "superiority". Life just works. If you knew anything about biology you would know that fitness has nothing to do with human cultural ideas of "good" and "bad" traits and everything to do with what's beneficial in that context. If having no arms increases your fitness, then evolution will select for you. Dodo's were perfectly fit until they were hunted to extinction. Survival of the fittest isn't about survival of the "best", it's about what traits are a fit for the context. If a round peg fits through a square hole, then it's evolutionarily "fit". It's that simple. > Do you think being prone to violence and having a high impulsivity is an undesirable trait, yes or not? More black and white thinking for your simple-minded misunderstanding of genomics, brilliant! The answer is: IT DEPENDS. Do you need a bunch of hunter-gatherers willing to act fast and kill things? Then yes. Do you need a bunch of business strategists to tow the line and be agreeable? Then no. But that's besides the point, since these traits are shown to be heavily environmental and barely have anything to do with genes. Violent people grow up in violent households, and they learn to be violent. There isn't a "chess gene", having access to good education and lots of practice in chess will make you a good chess player. > the blood of all those kids are on your hand This is incredibly hypocritical coming from someone who is advocating for sterilization of "undesirables" at best. So roll your eyes, shake your head, turn away and call me names, I don't care about your phony sense of "justice". > Eugenism "Eugenism" isn't a word, goofball. Genetic diversity is beneficial, environment has lots more to do with a persons outcomes than their genes, and traits are complex. Stop advocating for stupid ideas. Maybe someday you'll grow out of this foolishness. Goodbye!

>>81198 >I disagree with the rest (but you already knew that) No, sorry I don't read minds. What I've stated I believe is more or less factual and would like to know where exactly I've made an error in your view. Aside of that it's true, in the grand scheme of nature there isn't a "good" or "bad" per se. Only what helps you to survive and what doesn't. Bench pressing a lot or scoring high on an IQ test is worth as much in the wild as not wasting too much energy on a tall body or not having a fungal infection in your toe kill you but these are still sufficiently objective metrics to go by if you were to select for some traits over others. Just like we did with crops and dogs. The banana wouldn't exist as we know it at the supermarket. Same can be done with the homo sapiens, there's no question. Likewise do a person's genetics play a significant role. Sure, there's environmental influence and epigenetics and what not but it is based on our individual inherit setup first. People with different propensities will tend to react differently to the same situation. Sure there's a lot of variance but then again the best sprinters tend to be of african descent and the best lifers of caucasian for instance. Of course culture may play a role and what not but it's a greatly complex topic which can not be simplified neither with racial determinism nor with what appears to me is more or less the blank slate argument that you seem to be making. The reality is that just like external causes can invoke certain aspects of our epigenetics in various ways, so can long exposure, we're talking hundreds of thousands of years, to a given environment mold the genetics of its inhabitants and select for various things like if you're forced to think ahead for an entire season where the land is freezing and barren as opposed to one where plants and fruit are plentiful all year around. This is why some people like to say that culture is downstream from nature however I don't think it's that clear cut either. But what I've said at least should make you ponder about the importance of genetics. As for what is truly "good" or "bad", I don't think that being a snarky subjectivist is the best position to hold here. The nazis wanted to create their super soldier during the war. The north american plantation owners merely wanted better "farming tools" and our current rulers and technocrats are more than happy if they could just have a population of people who simply obey and consume (but also not too much). The problem with eugenics isn't the ambiguity of what is objectively better or selecting for a single allele. Dog breeders for the most part didn't even know what any of that was because they just made the biggest dog of the bunch breed all the females if their desire was to yield a kind of dogs superior in size. Same with other traits that made one race be best for a particular way of hunting or guarding the chicken's pen and so forth. But instead the practical issue of what I've described in my prior post. To reiterate in summary: To believe that we will only leave the superfluous on the cutting floor in this endeavor is hubris. And thinking that we can easily restore what we've lost is desperation. This has nothing to do with the platitude or anything akin to "diversity is our strength" but that the potential consequences of putting all our eggs in one basket is just that much worse. Hence we should avoid attempting it. But what's curious is a sort of in between or nudged selection like what medieval europe essentially did when they would throw around the death penalty for all the asocial and violent people until we were left with mostly people who can at least somewhat cohabit with each other. Not saying we should dust off those gallows for that purpose even though looking at where europe is moving right now we might just find ourselves in a medieval situation again but that this seems to have worked interestingly enough. And this societal influenced selection is still present with us, in fact will never leave us. It's just different methods and criteria, like being a rock star or not or some other thing that maximizes your chances to get laid today and not perish before you do. This is also why genetic diseases are actually not that common. For instance a person being born with the semblance of having both male and female genitals is in truth infertile and will not pass that unfortunate roll of dice to the next generation and is therefore extremely rare. More common are of course conditions where there's a chance for that individual to live long enough and procreate but if their chances for that are still less than normative then their distribution will be much less significant. I heard some doctors saying what we think are genetic issues are most often just malnutrition and nutritional deficits of various kinds. That or pollutants and adverse effects from some medications. So it that's the case and we often mistake that for genetic causes then that's a better argument against eugenics than us just not knowing what a desirable human specimen ought to be. >that Tyler1 guy If anything at least we can all agree that he's just built different.

>>81035 > someone calls for help and any near by persons helps them instead of standing around like idiots. If the local raider gang come with guns, trust me I am going to hide and I will use my gun only to defend people I like. >or for being exiled neither of which is prison Imagine if a western country did that. Surely, the anarchists would change their mind about this method of punishment. Anyway, what if the rapist just like to rape? If there are no jail or corporal punishment, then what? > Transhumanism is different from eugenics because it generally involves self changes Call me when it's possible to change your DNA. The only thing you can do right now is to eat ionized rays and in 99,99999% of case, your body will correct the change because it's well made. The only way to change the DNA of a person is to do it while it's still one cell. Once it's two, it's too late. Genetic engineering have been invented and obviously it's the way to go. Mam, do you want your baby to have an IQ of 150 or to let nature decide? Do you want a 2m tall muscular hourglass men among man or let nature decide? Do you want him to be immune to illnesses or let nature decide? >>81062 The counterculture has won. What is now against social norms is to love your people and your past and to build a family. Don't you dare to say there is only two genders or you are derezzed from education and the job market in tech. Who do you think the corpos and their dogs the journos hunt? The BLM riots showed us what is tolerated. Look at me. I am the punk now.

>>81168 >But the major flaw is not about whether artificial selection works or not but about how to implement it in a sensible way. Since who's going to make the decisions about who passes or not? And quantify the traits which are preferable over those which need to be discouraged? You made a good point. Now, balance the cost of doing it with its benefits. Crime is highly correlated with IQ and a lack of empathy, two mostly genetic factors, and the the rest of the factor is the social environment, something that also affect IQ and the development of empathy and guess what create safe and nurturing environment? Of course nobody should have the possibility of changing the selection by his power. We could, for instance give a score to the traits we want to encourage, say, size and strength and give a weight to each. Let 10 generations pass and we have tall and strong people. >People who're just smart enough to operate the machines and even conduct scientific research but too stupid and docile to ask too many uncomfortable and disruptive questions. Yes. Imagine a country the size of Denmark that have a population exclusively made of those people. Individual capacity would obviously vary form one individual to another and all the jobs would be done in a 100% safe country with a strong culture of mutual help. I am sure now you start to understand why the result is well worth the price. It's not at all what is done with immigration since welfare use, fraud, theft, rape, murders and even terrorism is off the chart on those people. Coudenhove-Kalegi specified that one specific ethnicity would remain pure and rule them all. That's indeed a form of eugenism but not one that is desirable, not even for the ruling ethnicity since they need their human cattle to be capable to function in a civilization, and it is now obvious to everyone as Jews all over Europe flee the raise of antisemitism caused by the new population as well as the decay of the wealth and stability of the host nations. Now, if on the opposite, Europe was filled with Scandinavians, the same people would not rule anything but enjoy a much better life than what they have now. Inbreed royalty like Charlie there have nothing to do with eugenism, you simply need your sister, mother and aunt to be different people . If you, your father and your grandfather break that rule, you get Charles II. >Our goal should be thus to improve probabilities of beneficial traits to proliferate. Okay but what if women simply want to ride criminals while the hardworking law abiding doctor die a virgin? And don't worry for genetic diversity, the only way to enforce eugenism is at a small scale, a city at best, with the rest of the world as a pool for desirable sperm and a place to enjoy for the individuals who are not good enough to reproduce in the city but want to do it anyway.

>>81198 According to Darwin, it's not survival of the fittest but survival of the one who can best adapt to changes. Mass extinctions are meant to happen. Change happen. The dodo wasn't good at adapting fast, but in that case it was understandable. Would you be surprised to learn that hunters are friendly, work in group and stick to the plan and most importantly have a patience seconded only by fishermen? Ever tried to hide in a hut all day, not even knowing if it is worth it? And guess who get the meat? The hunter who can wait until he have a good angle. Violence and high impulsivity are never good traits. Not even in the army, you want the enemy to face soldiers who are still alive. Nature vs nuture? This old debate again? Okay. It's not all nature and it's not all nuture. We always reach this conclusion. Sure, we can change the environment but we are already trying our best and that not going well. Say, you want to breed good chess players. Inteligence is to chess what brute strengh is to boxing: training do all the work but find a chessmaster who is not a genius or a boxer who isn't really strong. Now, let's address the main point of your post: eugenism suppose that at best we sterilize half of the population and at worse we gas them. We don't have to, because eugenism work and after two generations, we will have a population more capable to build a better place than we are, and they will just have to have their place to make it the best place in the world. Nobody have the duty to stay but if you do, you have to follow the rules. The worse form of punishment would be to live like you and me. Now consider this: how many geniuses it would take to create a functional fusion reactor? 100 of them with the help of 10000 average people and a good number of manual workers qualified for a job. That's all it take. And once we reach the industrialization phase, 10 of them only per construction site, with the help of everyone of course.

>>80522 Whose pet project is this? This is AIDS

>>82980 one worth grinding for ps:stop deleting my posts mod, i had fundament and justification for saying what i said.

>>82982 So after all the criticism you got from other lains you're still convinced this is the right way to go about it?

>>82983 i want a world where i can forget about natural selection and pain.(dream on playing on the background)

>>83006 because in the world of wise pain and natural selection exist for the sake of personal growth and as such they loose their original meaning and cease to be pain and natural selection, becoming rather sweet hardship with granted fruit. much better than this world where pain exists for the sake of it and natural selection cuts you off the moment you're born. living isn't fun when it's just waiting for death. wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so full of morons, degenerates and other abominations. can't go outside without running into some low iq cattle. even you

>>83007 >meaning makes pain good actually Well that's where it's not pain anymore isn't it? This is seen in things like endorphins. In a world where meaningful lifechanging experiences can be induced with LSD, I think it's rather silly to suppose that the chemical basis of life is not relevant, or that we evolved for a happy mindset. Far better to live as we best can now, while working for betterment of our nature and world tomorrow. >>83005 Thanks a lot! I do too! And for every feeling creature which ever will exist. I don't think I can copy paste, but you can hit me up at 1bableler on discord, babeler@matrix.org on matrix, or endexternalities@posteo.net . I'm also happy to link the telegrams of those who actually started this thing, but I think copy and paste activates the spam filter. There's also a lot of things for me to address from the rest of you. Thanks for your posts. My views of the world have, I think become a little healthier over the past few months, but I'll have to get to those another time.

>>83007 Utility, makes pain good. Meaning is a cope. The moment pain ahs destroyed you beyond the point where you can use the body and mind to transmute it into something useful, you will begin to crumble beneath it, and will seek to get the psychophysical "garment" "off". If you continue in this line of thought your body will become a torture chamber you are trapped in. You will think of nothing other than what was lost and the need to get this fncking thing OFF. GET IT OFF. Since the universe responds to your pattern of attention it may initially repair your body, but only to destroy it more later, because that's what you told it you wanted.