/sci/ - Science & Math

With a starting population of 300 men and women, with 200 being spread out under the age of 40. Could you avoid the negative impact of inbreeding by introducing new dna through sperm donations? Or is there a need to introduce new females into the group as well.

>>11621411

What are the most realistic possibilities regarding Eugenics at the moment. I imagine one day we will be altering our appearance and improving our intelligence, perception, and mental health.

Can I get a sample of DNA from ALL of my dead grandparents and check it up with my own DNA to see how much I've inherited from them?

I personally would have loved to have all of them alive so we can all get a brain wave test and compared our results, but we don't live in fairy tales. Or in a conscious world that makes sure all the organs are dissected, analyzed and kept around like Einstein's brain.

are there some scientific reasons against eugenics by genetical engineering ?

for example if we would find the genetical "g" the general intelligence factor

is there any reason besides moralistic chatter that would speak against an exclusive selection of the most intelligent embryos ?

ive heard arguments like the alleged reduction of genetic diversity that might lead to a lesser adaptation speed

but isnt that wrong ? how would you decrease the diversity if you were to shift the bell curve in one direction ? the distance between the dumbest and the smartest would seem to remain the same

>>8228506
We are evolving now.

>pic only tangentially related (sorta)

We know what DNA is, we know how genetics work. Why is eugenics vilified? Why is seeking the optimal outcome bad?

All morals and ethics aside, could humans be selectively bred to create a better quality of human?

What exactly is wrong with eugenics?

Is there a non emotional argument against eugenics?

Okay /int/ so what if we create a glamorized image of science that people going into STEM fields won't live up to? Like how football players have their heroes who make millions each year, and worthless skanks have Hollywood. We make it look cool and appealing to the younger generation, so that it encourages people to go into these fields. What sort of images could we create that appeal to pull in future scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, while still being entertaining?

Naked science chicks?
Reality TV shows?
Partying on the moon?

Did somebody say genetic engineering?

Tell me, what do you think of EUGENICS?

Are there any non-ethical/moral (i.e. real) reasons to oppose eugenics?

How does /sci/ feel about eugenics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Do we have a right to determine who will be born in the next generation and thus who will control and direct the destiny of man and the universe? We are already doing that through the tax and welfare structure. A person who accepts responsibility for restructuring society in one generation automatically becomes responsible for the effects of that restructuring on future generations. "The pattern of present births is the pattern of future population." Suppose we continue the present policy of encouraging the least capable members of the human race to reproduce by giving them encouragements, welfare grants and rewards for bearing more children? In the end, there would be more people consuming goods than there would be people who had the ability to produce these goods and the very people we were trying to help would starve.

The existence of man depends on the genetically capable individuals because they are the only ones who can maintain society. If the capable individuals are not born or educated, all the people will starve. In order to prevent human suffering, we must first take care of those who can maintain civilization rather than those who will never be able to contribute. It is irresponsible for any society to adopt a social welfare system as they have today, without adopting a eugenic welfare system in conjunction with it. We must consider the future good of mankind. The premise of working for the greatest good for the greatest number is correct, but we must include in that number all the children who will ever be born in all the days that will ever be not just those who happen to have been conceived and born and who happen to exist at this particular stage in evolution.

What is your stance on euginics /sci/?

Hello /sci/
since we have developed science and gained knowledge,
evolution is nowadays a fact that can not be denied and therefore we, as we are here and today, we are also
a product of evolution.
The theory says that evolution is undirected and only
determined by the genetic potential of the population
and the surrounding factors e.g. food supply ect.
But as we as humans figured out how evolutionary mechanisms and evolution itself is functioning, would it not be the right way to direct the human evolution in a way we want to. I am not speaking in a racist way, I am speaking of a eugenic way.
Would it not be right to let only those of us reproduce who are free from any genetic disease and mistakes, to gradually take the next step to a new human kind without genetic determined diseases?
I want to point out that I am not speaking about racial breed or euthanasia.
I want your opinion on eugenics.
Please only valid and no racist comments.
Thank you and discus.

The problem is obvious.
The solution is simple.

Can someone give me one good reason why Eugenics is not still practiced today (besides the Nazis). Personally i think it would be a good idea to sterilize the mentally or physically disabled, and stop them from passing on there bad genes. what does /sci/ think??