/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6461071
It's already there. It's called pre-natal screening.
See attached.

>>6461077
Eugenics is one of the most interesting subjects.

>>6461125
>>6461179
>>6461407
>Its more like 90+% - the difficulty is that most of the genes determining intellectuality are either dominant or resessive

No. The genes are almost all additive. The current estimates are in the area 50-85%. The 50 lower limit comes from purely genetic studies, not pedigree. About 85% is the upper limit of twin studies.

>>6461328
>>6461353
>It's much safer to remove negative traits than to encourage positive traits.

It is the same in practice. Encourage smartness. Discourage stupidity.

>>6462600
No, but it slows it down.

If you are curious OP, read: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=062AE7BDC71206418D86334DBD710D4C&open=0

>>6449567
Selective breeding aka. classical eugenics is too slow and in any case politically unwelcome now. What you want to do is embryo selection and genetic engineering.

>>6446258
Of course. Eugenics is just selective breeding for desirable traits in humans.

>>6410744
>>6410744
>How likely is that we'll be able to raise human intelligence?
≈100%

We know it's highly genetic. We know how selective breeding works. And we did it in the past (which is why humans are so smart).

>It seems to me the most of the world's problems would be solved if the average IQ was 140.

A lot of them, yes.

How? Like this:

>>6410755
>>6410792
He did not say IQ, he said intelligence. IQ≠intelligence. IQ is not a ratio scale.

>>6412194
Nothing much happens as long as you are an individualist. There are smart and dumb people of every race, so making collective bans is bad as it necessarily wastes talent.

The thing to do is get rid of institutionalized racism e.g. affirmative action.

>>6412246
>Eugenics programs for all races.

very soon

>>6395732
>Our knowledge would vastly improve and our culture would be different, but 1000 years is so little on the time scale of evolution that there would be no difference. If you took a baby from the year 1000 A.D. and raised him today, you couldn't tell him apart from anyone else. Same thing if you took a baby from the year 2000 and raised them in the year 3000.

You are assuming no artificial selection. That's a very bad assumption. Embryo selection for g will start soon.

Yes, this is why we need to get on with eugenics for g very soon, otherwise we will end up with a very large unemployable part of the population.

Picture related. We have the technology now, but it is too expensive for mass adoption. That will soon change.

use this when it gets cheaper

>>6194167
Yes, eugenic practices are mainstream, they are just called something else.

Picture related, it is how modern eugenics works.

We will soon.

Of course.

See related: