If you’ve ever read The Satanic Scriptures, you would see that Magus Gilmore gives his take on eugenics in a rather broad manner. I personally agree with having SOME eugenics if certain people meet certain criteria. This is the criteria. I’ll make this brief.<br />
<br />
First, I believe, with modern technology full DNA profiles must be done of every human that’s born. Anyone with a prominent family history of : Cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis and other genetic disorders must be sterilized.<br />
<br />
Then second, I believe that anyone that goes on certain public assistance must be sterilized. People must be sterilized after the first child if they are on welfare for up to 5 years after they have their first child. If they are still on welfare after year 5, then they must be sterilized to prevent anyone from intentionally drawing welfare in perpetuity. I also believe that certain people on public disability must be sterilized. I know a guy that is on SSD for schizophrenia and he should NOT be able to have kids.<br />
<br />
This would save society TRILLIONS.<br />
Sign In
My take on eugenics | Forum
Support
Anna
May 13 '22
Looks like some kind of dystopia. Theoretically, you might be right. Certain people should indeed never have children either because they are irresponsible twats or because they simply can't afford it. In practice, it gets complicated because who should decide who is worthy to reproduce and who isn't? The government? They can fuck up even the most noble or pragmatic ideas. The doctors? Scientists? So-called experts? They've already shown their pseudo-wisdom during the Covid pseudo-pandemic.
I'm highly sceptical about genetic tests. They have too many limitations. I also doubt cancer or diabetes type 2 are hereditary. I know people who got sick though their parents didn't and people whose parents had either cancer or diabetes but they themselves were healthy.
Satanist since more than a decade
May 26 '22
Eugenics is bullshit.
It is entirely dependent on opinion and circumstance.
Believe it will save trillions for "economic purposes" by sterilizing low-class degenerates is a failure to understand the dynamics in cash-flow.
Those "degenerates" are what keeps the economy afloat. Putting a halt to their reproduction will only dry-up your customer base into certain failure.
Are their undesirables in society?
Without doubt. Better to weaponize them for your own gain than to have them weeded out. DNA-profiling is a dumbshit move. Science-based ideology is not the answer you are looking for.
Sabrina
May 26 '22
This is dumb. It's treating the symptoms rather than the cause. A lot of us carry disorders in the form of recessive genes. The only people that should be "sterilized" are people who do not know how to raise kids properly
NUTZ Geraldo Respuesta
May 31 '22
Eugenics is like forcing natural selection. Deliberately, naturally, and by accident.
Cannibis is nothing but eugenics.
"Lets take some Purple Kush and cross it with some Alaskan Thunderfuck and then cross that with Northern Lights."
Nothing but forcing nature like a plumcot.
Or like Island Syndome or whatever its called when island indiginous people naturally start favoring genes that give an average height of 4' 6". That's sort of a natural (selection) eugenics. And onward until their are pymgy cannibals. You could absolutely isolate the genes in people with a lower occurance of cancer and heart disease and selectively breed it out.
You should see what an average Californian looks like as compared to an average Arizonan. The states literaly touch but Californias selective breeding of gorgeous people makes a "10" in the latter about a "5" in the former. Southern Californian's bred a race of a beautiful United Colors of Benetton children. Ethnically diverse future punters, extras, actors, sports stars, rock stars, and trophy wives. Beautiful people having beautiful children, that will have more beautiful children.
It be Hitler's dream if it wasnt the strongest or most beuatiful of EVERY race.
Cannibis is nothing but eugenics.
"Lets take some Purple Kush and cross it with some Alaskan Thunderfuck and then cross that with Northern Lights."
Nothing but forcing nature like a plumcot.
Or like Island Syndome or whatever its called when island indiginous people naturally start favoring genes that give an average height of 4' 6". That's sort of a natural (selection) eugenics. And onward until their are pymgy cannibals. You could absolutely isolate the genes in people with a lower occurance of cancer and heart disease and selectively breed it out.
You should see what an average Californian looks like as compared to an average Arizonan. The states literaly touch but Californias selective breeding of gorgeous people makes a "10" in the latter about a "5" in the former. Southern Californian's bred a race of a beautiful United Colors of Benetton children. Ethnically diverse future punters, extras, actors, sports stars, rock stars, and trophy wives. Beautiful people having beautiful children, that will have more beautiful children.
It be Hitler's dream if it wasnt the strongest or most beuatiful of EVERY race.
This could be a national anthem in a future Republic of California. All hail President Gavin Newsom!
The Forum post is edited by Geraldo Respuesta May 31 '22
donot
Jun 5 '22
This is complete garbage. Some genes prevail over others. If you prevent some genes from the gene pool, even the ones you think as weak, then you distract the whole process.
NUTZ Geraldo Respuesta
Jun 6 '22
What process?
Flood Volcanism is also part of the natural process. It causes anoxia in the oceans and kills all but the extremophiles. The world is nothing but outside influences steering the genetics of the many species.
And eugenics means its definition to me:
the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.
And we can't play god since when? If it works on everything else.
We do nothing but eugenically engineer our food. Everything but ourselves. Even the Non GMO shit retards think is more environmentally conscious is still controlled. The end result are retard chickens with succulent meat portions and mindless cattle with genetic memory to eat feed or bits of other cow, and yield nothing but USDA prime cuts after they die. You lose the taste of grassfed cattle, but you gain on the bottom line. Doesnt really effect their viability either. And the taste is just a diet thing.
You cant breed the strongest and healthiest race horse without a derby winner sent to stud. Fuck the detrimental genes, hasn't hurt the horses any to emphasize the desirable.
The beautiful thing about genetics is its great at being perpetually fucked with by outside influences, which now includes humans.
I just find it fucking hilarious that the line for people is doing what we do to everything else living to humans. Yay Religion!
The Forum post is edited by Geraldo Respuesta Jun 6 '22
donot
Jun 12 '22
What process? Natural selection. In a way you can say that genetically engineering genes is part of natural selection also. Technology is altering evolution, or technology is merely broadening the path of evolution? And what has already been done by taming and domesticating cattle, horses or sheep? Isn't that a way of altering the path of evolution? So in a way I think it is not about what is desirable, but about what is consumable. It is wrongly perceived that eugenics is about making desirable, it is more about making something consumable.
NUTZ Geraldo Respuesta
Jun 13 '22
Eugenics and genetic engineering are totally different.
Like for example, eugenics would be if we banned people as fucking retarded as you from breeding and increased the over all intelligence of society because of it.
The Forum post is edited by Geraldo Respuesta Jun 13 '22
Jupiter Wyrd
Jul 7 '25
@Anna you wrote (in italics)
I also doubt cancer or diabetes type 2 are hereditary. I know people who got sick though their parents didn't and people whose parents had either cancer or diabetes but they themselves were healthy.
There are hereditary tendencies towards cancer and diabetes, but the main causes are environmental (in the case of cancer) and lifestyle-related (in the case of both). The same is true for schizophrenia.
I also don't see the connection between being on welfare and genes. It's true that being 'successful' financially or through other means is difficult for people below a certain threshhold of general intelligence (g), and that most jobs require knowledge of complex tasks which are difficult for people with low g. But there isn't a direct correlation between genes, g, and financial independence. Some people are just lazy, and/or want to game the system. 'Even' the smart ones. In fact gaming the welfare system isn't something someone with low intelligence could do.
The Forum post is edited by Jupiter Wyrd Jul 7 '25
Jupiter Wyrd
Jul 7 '25
Anyways, the whole topic is moot.
How would anyone implement selective breeding?
with who/m?
for the profit of who/m?
who would enforce it?
By what criteria are 'we' deciding what genetic traits are superior to others?
What's to prevent one population from benefitting from the labour of another, more productive population, through government benefits (supposing they are living in the same country)? This seems to be the concern of the OP, but I see no reason to think eugenics would fix it.
I'm not against the aim of eugenics, in itself, if that is to breed superior (in my view) humans. But in practice it seems difficult to implement. And it probably wouldn't resolve the issues OP is concerned with, especially not within their lifetime.
The Forum post is edited by Jupiter Wyrd Jul 7 '25
Support Dantalion
Jul 18 '25
I went down a rabbit hole a few months ago regarding gene editing. I believe that due to low birth rates, in order to prevent the extinction of the human race, billionaires will fund “baby mills”. What will happen is these billionaires will design super humans (I can imagine “baby catalogs like they have at sperm banks) with high intelligence, top notch physique, and desirable beauty features through some computer program. Then these humans will be grown in artificial wombs. Once the human is ready, it will be “born” to A.I robot parents, which will raise these kids to adult hood. I give it 30 years until we start seeing this.
Mod
Brother_Telluric
Jul 20 '25
Yeah as Bafomets says population of humans will be great , it could be that in 30 years it will be possible to have artificial human/transhuman created but that will be more like work of art, unique cases (it is possible even now and ridiculously expensive and technically demanding )but it is unlikely(very highly unlikely)that they will be mass born in that way, you can pump the genome and all but in the end there are other factors, it is hell of a job to tweak a biology plus ,in reference to what you can judge the perfection ? becouse you know you can have a "perfect" gennes and all and then some unknown factor that can throw all that perfection in to water so to say. Human genetiks and biology is insanely complex thing, it will be even then in far future far more practical to import people who by merit pass some criteria of sponsor, then to "make" them from zero, so in year 2050 they will still be pleanty of humans that can be mobilised/chosen from more cost effectively than made!
Brother_Telluric
Jul 20 '25
* not just expensive/demanding but proscribed also by multiple authorities
Brother_Telluric
Jul 20 '25
manipulation of highly complex system,as human form will probably result in unforeseen mishaps . For no reason the creators can ascertain, there would be suprises , in making "perfect" transhuman, we are just long way from this in my opinion.
Support Dantalion
Aug 17 '25
My theory of artificial wombs and babies being picked out of catalogs is coming true. China just came out with a pregnancy robot complete with an artificial womb. We’ll see if it works. Even if you’re able to artificially give birth to a human, the baby will still need parents to raise it. Now we’ll see if my prediction of robot parents comes true.
Brother_Telluric
Aug 20 '25
Perhaps in far future, it is conceivable on some sleeper ship for intrastelar travel or something like that but in our lifetime factory for human beingings is far from happening. Something likely post 2100. Communist China is inflating the story, and their real scientific progress is propagandised , inflated or blatant lies. Western science demonstrated artificial womb some years ago but not in whole stage, in last stages. Progress on mastering that ain't gonna go fast likly 20+ years and then for that it will likely need a whole facility with staff just to run small batch of artificial persons.
The Forum post is edited by Brother_Telluric Sep 16 '25
