/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10816365
Yes, but why bother?

>>10816365
Possibly if you have no moral scruples

>>10816365
Not only viable, but neccessary.

Though not as you image, by selectively breeding parents. Rather, GATTACA style, selecting preferable traits among reproductive cells, or artificially augmenting them using gene-editing tools.

This needs to be embrace, if we are to survive as a technologically advancing civilization.

>>10816365
Why do you think jews are so smart? They purposefully create someone like Hitler each time they want to clear their genetic code.

>>10816365
No. Landraces are always better of than purebred animals which suffer from disorders. When you select too strongly for certain traits, you lose heterozygote advantage. The only possible way could be 'soft' eugenics - create a closed society and let only those with desirable traits join, but leave the others alone so that the genetic pool is preserved.

>>10816365

Yes it is. However, we're reaching a point where advancement in several fields is making the classical approach of selective breeding is no longer time efficient. Both direct manipulation of the human genetic code, via gene editing of embryoes, and the direct supplimentation of human consciousness through cybernetics will, within the next 50-100 years increase human intelligence by levels far surpassing what you could achieve through selective breeding; even with ideal specimens the most you would get is ~ 5 generations within the next 100 years.

On a soceital scale, this would not be able to effect the overall levels of intelligence of the population at large, simply due to the numbers involved; and the overall disapporval of eugenics by soceity at large, in this time period (for good reasons, no one has control over their own genetics; you're simply born the way you're born).

In contrast, the aformentioned techniques, espically cybernetics promises changes that will affect and benefit everyone on a soceital level; giving access to instantaneous calculations, language processing, and information databases that only savants and geniuses were capable of learning and utilizing- and even then only through intense study of multiple fields over many many years. Soon everyone and anyone will be able to utilize advanced calculise in their everyday life, while understanding every language known to mankind and having instantaneous access to "information" that would make today's Jeopardy champions look like mediocre grade schoolers, in terms of access to the totality of available human information.


In terms of actual eugenics, it's not explicitly discussed in the west; but one of the reasons for the university system is to provide a selective pool for "soft" eugenics whereby the less intelligent part of the population are excluded from the breeding pool during the years of prime fertility. The Chinese also have a direct system.

>>10816365
Why would you want to?

I mean, humans evolved to be a bunch of different characteristics. It's a stupid idea to deliberate fuck with them, in order to optimize for one (admittedly desirable) trait.

You'd probably end up with super-high suicide rates, and other genetic baggage, because you are selecting genes that are not exactly optimal for human survival. You'd make us like bulldogs - terrible dogs, and the result of a genetic bottleneck, optimizing for a particular set of characteristics.

>>10816410
why would someone have moral scruples?

>>10816365
Yes to both the removal of detrimental traits is a definite need as would breeding good health and intelligence although steps must be taken to preserve the diversity of the genepool so that we can improve the new "breed" with potentially better traits
>>10816455
Modern dog breeds are a terrible example given that they were largely bred exclusively for physical appearance and in quite a few cases the physical appearance was the perpetuation of negative traits like as you mentioned a bulldogs absolutely smashed skull a better example would be landrace plants or working line dogs which excel in whatever way man decided they will

>>10816435
Using landraces as an argument against eugenics is wrong on principle given that landraces underwent human selection the basic idea and principles of selective breeding would do wonders for humanity but it is an absolute given that we should preserve the genepool it'd be absolute madness not preserving the greater genepool similar to how with our modern crops we still keep a good stock of heirloom seeds and landraces

>>10816524
with crop landraces all that doesn't work dies and only that most able to reproduce actually contributes seed to the next generation
we face as modern developed human societies dysgenic selection against intellect where those most intelligent are having few or no kids while those at the bottom are incentivised to use kids as a welfare check it's really quite a perverse incentive system

>>10816531
*cheque

Eugenics isn't primarily about raising intelligence. It's about removing negative genes from the gene pool first and foremost.

>>10816365

Schooling is cheaper.

>>10816365
It is very much viable, as numerous studies on breeding rats have shown.

>>10816365
CACOGENICS

>>10816661

could we create humans who would be better adapted to space travel? more resistant to radiation and lack of gravity maybe?

>>10816365
If ONLY positives such as intelligence is increased, yes. Who wouldnt want this?

BUT, a strong correlation exists between high intel and mental illness. Unless the risk of negative associated traits is made acceptable, it's not really a good trade.

>>10816737
If you could bring a large enough genetically diverse humans and subject them to those conditions and monitor the differences then yes

>>10816751

i guess it would happen naturally over time in a space colony but im curious how realistic it is tweaking peoples genomes to get these desired traits in the not to distant future. would working out how to make humans more resistant to radiation be a big step to curing aging?

>>10816365
sure

>>10816751
aren't there mice and rat breeding studies in space?
couldn't we map the selected genes and see what they do?
like we've done for domestication syndrome?

>>10816768
It'd all depend on what genetic traits we can observe that react to the conditions in space
>>10816777
I see little reason as to why it wouldn't work it's just that animal trials can only go so far

two issues I'm aware of regarding space, pressure building up in the head due lack of gravity pulling fluids down and the behaviour of bacteria

>>10816365
>Could you use selective breeding processes to raise populations intelligence?
Why don't you try it and find out?

chinks probably make superhumans already

Eugenics is impractical since we can use genetic engineering.

>>10816793
Our current use of genetic engineering is only just picking up a coloured nail while wearing a blindfold and giving it a whack

>>10816768
>not to distant future

i meant not too distant future. please forgive me.

>>10816745
>>10816455
High intelligence is also correlated with overall happiness.

>>10816786
>the behaviour of bacteria

how does space change their behaviour?

>>10816800
Still better than breeding. And incomparably faster.

>>10816804
>Intelligence predicts more overall happiness

I really dont know what the odds are; knowing would be helpful. I'm gambling: %happy + %increasedearning(as a marker for usefulness) - %neuropsychotic - %increasesocialcost.

>>10816365
>Is eugenics viable?
No.
It has been tried a long time ago and it very much did not work. Why doesn't people check history??

>>10816365
Just look at dogs

Shiztus are the product of selective breeding.
They are full of love, highly dependent, make great children replacements for parents

side effects: leaky heart valves, liver shunts, bad teeth, terrible vision, lowered life expectancy,

breeding for a few aspects will change dozens of others and we just don't know enough to do it without producing an non-viable monstrosity


>>10816421
we simply don't know enough to pull that off. Traits in a living organism are always a trade off and different functions and tasks can be run by entirely different genes in multiple overlapping configurations.
I certainty don't want myself or my 'kids' to be on the early end of this adoption

>>10816365
I dunno, I proposed on /fit we gassed the manlets, fatties and baldilocks so the next gen would be all adonis, but got my thread deleted like wtf

>>10816821
not necessarily given that with genetic engineering we are only working with a small amount of genes and given the more understanding we're having on genetics in general a more macro approach might be better since we're noticing a massive amount of the genes interact with each other and for genetic engineering we must first identify the specific genes where in breeding we only need to look at traits which are more readily identified
>>10817409
Only issue with dog breeding is the limiting of genepools and the abomination of dog breed clubs which only keep the uniformity of morphological traits it's not that "breeding a few aspects will make others worse" modern non working line dogs are just a product of a layman's understanding of genetics and overemphasis on it's look over it's health or ability
>>10817409
We know enough about selective breeding already even a layman with a basic modern understanding is able to create wonders with plants
>>10817394
Eugenics is just the application of selective breeding in man and historically selective breeding is the reason why man was even able to exist in large scale communities

bump

>>10816365
AI and gene manipulation is the the universe, eugenics would be a spec.

>>10816365
that's where most smart people come from, smart people choosing to breed with other smart people, unfortunately it's not the only trait or most chosen trait humans choose in mates.

>>10817716
Haterz gon hate

>>10817716
Because society would be better off if we gassed _you_.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/pol/

>>10818617
>horseshoe theory
Absolutely disgusting and this is hardly a /pol/ thread

>>10818621
absolutely disgusting is right. communists are far worse.

>>10816365
No, if Eugenics created a better human, the first thing he or she would do is to destroy the eugenicists because why should a superior human be controlled by inferior beings.

>>10818762
if it were that instantaneous the eugenicist would just do it on themselves

>>10816365
nazi germans tried it and still lost to sandniggers.

>>10816675
does this mean IQ was at an average of 1000 in the past when africans were the most dominant races in the world?

>>10818793
>still lost to sandniggers
The only army they genuinely lost to was the Red Army, which was racially largely (but obviously not exclusively) white.

>>10817716
>so the next gen would be all adonis
That's not how genetics works, removing all persons with one particular trait won't make that trait disappear.
Eugenics can only work if it is practiced over generations and generations.

>>10817394
>It has been tried a long time ago
Really?
Like for 10+ generations, or any time span in which it could feasably have any results?

In theory.
In practice, nobody will live long enough to actually see through a eugenics project, it takes far too long to see payoffs, inherited conditions are a serious concern in all selective breeding human or otherwise.

Genetic engineering has better prospects.

>>10817780
>We know enough about selective breeding already even a layman with a basic modern understanding is able to create wonders with plants
Even professional breeders struggle with not making plants extremely susceptible to disease, so that many crops became basically inviable without pesticides. Same with pigs. Pigs are currently dying en masse because they have zero immunity to a disease that is spreading across the globe. (Wild pigs survive and the infection of wild pigs on the Czech republic disappeared in a while, all the domestic pigs in the population die)

>>10818617
No, the leftist side is only similar because leftist ideologies are susceptible to being taken over by right wingers who seek the status associated with them. (This is how many originally anarchist or otherwise left wing groups turn fascist within one generation)

>>10818871
>Even professional breeders struggle with not making plants extremely susceptible to disease
It's actually not that hard to weed out super susceptible plants depending on the scale of breeding and which method you use it's not really a struggle just time consuming
t. botanist
and the pig problem seems like the answer is just backcrossing for resistance which is a fairly common method

>>10818876
complex behavioral traits are a bit different

Eugenics fails because we do not actually know how to make it work
Each attempt to engineer "better humans" has failed because we still don't know what majority of human genes actually do. Eugenics is still just blindly stumbling forward and having no idea what the result is.

>>10818936
That's an absolute lie and even without full knowledge of the exact genes we are working with we are able to make great progress through the identification of traits as can be observed in any plant or animal breeding and the only reason past attempts failed was a lack of proper selection and the fact that the attempts were not long lasting

>>10818949
Animal breeding is exactly the reason why it does not work
"I will breed this dog more beautiful/stronger!" said the breeder as he created another dog with massive health issues that result in a painful death.
The best successes of animal breeding have been due to darn luck of the draw, the people who bred the best horses did it with no science, the nature's way.

>>10818953
>said the breeder as he created another dog with massive health issues that result in a painful death.
Any breeder with the intention to create a dog without health issues is extremely likely to succeed the common "purebred" dogs you see today are the result of breeding for look over all else
>The best successes of animal breeding have been due to darn luck of the draw, the people who bred the best horses did it with no science, the nature's way.
Clearly you've never actually dealt with horse breeders who keep absolutely horrifyingly detailed records on each horse's linage and their traits

>>10818953
that's why eugenics is more easily accomplished by working in the other direction, ie sterilising retards
but even your example would be valuable to society, we could easily manage having a few more stephen hawkings around

>>10818954
What kennel is paying you to even post that kind of horseshit, "healthy purebreds", don't make me laugh. Almost all "pure" breeds are riddled with health issues.

Also those horse breeders had no control over the traits of their horses. It was always just gambling and there was no guarantee any of the traits would be passed down.

>>10818959
>What kennel is paying you to even post that kind of horseshit, "healthy purebreds", don't make me laugh. Almost all "pure" breeds are riddled with health issues.
Reread the sentence
>Also those horse breeders had no control over the traits of their horses. It was always just gambling and there was no guarantee any of the traits would be passed down.
That's simply not true

>>10818953

This is very wrong. How do you think we got warhorses, how do you think we domesticated animals in the first place?

Clearly we can select for traits to make dogs more compliant, smaller and larger. Clearly we can do the same for horses. There's absolutely no reason why we can't do the same for people.

Denying eugenics works is essentially anti-evolution and its a bizarre belief to have. The fact that breeders didn't know what genes were doesn't mean they couldn't use them. Ignorance doesn't make you intrinsically better at performing a task.

>>10818862
ironically religions are massive eugenics projects

>>10816365
No. Genetic engineering.

Any advantages Eugenics could possibly provide would take generations to fulfill. Genetic engineering will do it in 1 with better results.

Why is this question still asked? Are people really that stupid?

>>10818617
>fascism is egoism
>ultracapitalism is a healthy balance of altruism and egoism

>>10818617
>fascism is egoism
>ultracapitalism is a healthy balance of altruism and egoism
>soft communism is populist nationalism

>>10818617
>fascism is egoism
>ultracapitalism is a healthy balance of altruism and egoism
>soft communism is populist nationalism

>>10818954
>Clearly you've never actually dealt with horse breeders who keep absolutely horrifyingly detailed records on each horse's linage and their traits

And once they bred Impressive stallion that way...

>>10819002
>Ignorance doesn't make you intrinsically better at performing a task.

Look up green lumber fallacy.

>>10819071
My only fear with genetic engineering is that we would do more harm than good without even realizing it until it is too late

>>10818806
It was tried in Sparta about 2500 years ago for a period of centuries. They selectively bred people for docility by murder in client states to avoid revolts, and selectively killed their own babies that were deemed weak.

There is no significant difference today.

>>10819336
england executed 2% of the most violent offenders for centuries and the crime records show a gradual improvement in IQ

evolution tends select negatively against what doesn't work more powerfully than it positively selects for what does work.

>>10819342
source

>>10818802
and yet sandniggers were still the ones to liberate multiple countries.

>>10816410
why would creating better humans and thereby a better world be immoral?

>>10819371
that Dr edward dutton guy on youtube

>>10819526
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3YTUotj0VY

>>10816804
What if
>intelligent people are more prone to mental illness
>but because of their smarts and education and income (which are highly correlated with IQ) they learn how to cope
>thus eliminating the negative effects of mental illness in happiness
>increasing their neutral happiness as a result of better income (lessened economic distress)

>>10819194
Yes Impressive which had a inherited trait

>>10819194
Impressive's descendants were fairly fast horses desu and the defect he carried is slowly being bred out

>>10819071
not necessarily given that with genetic engineering we are only working with a small amount of genes and given the more understanding we're having on genetics in general a more macro approach might be better since we're noticing a massive amount of the genes interact with each other and for genetic engineering we must first identify the specific genes where in breeding we only need to look at traits which are more readily identified

>>10818617
retard alert
>shutting down discussion because it goes against my worldview

>>10819336
>There is no significant difference today.
Since the citizens of Sparta were a few thousands at the time and since 2000 years passed by with all their indiscriminate killings population displacements, a significant difference would be unexpected.

with livestock the best way to breed is with simple selection based on diverse real life performance criteria
genomic profiles are only indicative
I'd rather use genomics to identify animals that shouldn't breed and then rely on traditional breeding for the actual selections

>>10819336
It's almost like it was a few thousand years of interbreeding and no more eugenic selection

>>10816407
Because he wants to have sex.

>>10816365
Yes. Do this:
> Go to a bar.
> Cock block a black man in the name of eugenics
Report back on the results.

>>10824289
kek. Every other night, unfortunately for the human race I use condoms though.

>>10816365
There's not a lot of variance in the human genome and there are a lot of factors that go into what makes intelligence.
You could probably get more mileage out of sequestering multiple populations, giving them proper nutrition, infrastructure, and education, and then establishing a baselines from that.

>>10824528
There's actually quite a few interesting traits some small communities or families seem to possess and with the population rapidly increasing there is a growing increase in traits to find and in regards to intelligence it's so far been shown to be a highly heritable trait which would indicate a variance in intelligence from a genetic level

>>10821662 >>10823793
And yet for instance Jews remain a distinct group throughout millennia. Your arguments do not work.

>>10824315
normie kys pls

>>10816667
>education raises intelligence
ive got some bad news for you my friend

>>10824622
by what logic? your average ashkenazi jew has less than 3% middle eastern dna

The more the welfare state expands, the more voluntary eugenics becomes a critical necessity. Retarded people would gladly trade their reproductive ability for $5k in government-bux.

>>10816365
it would be viable if there was an accurate way to measure intelligence

>>10824835
do we have an accurate way to measure stupidity?

>>10824849

Trash the IQ test all you want but if you're getting 85 or lower you're objectively an idiot. It was originally intended to screen out retardation anyway, it becomes less applicable as a metric past 100, but if you're underperforming that you're just stupid.

>>10816365

intelligence is relative you fuckin moron. if everyone was more intelligent by the same amount NOTHING would fucking change. it would be the exact same societal structure. what matters is the average difference in intelligence. that is where you see societal changes. another big problem in selecting for intelligence is that you end up selecting for more feminine traits broadly, i.e. you get east asians, european jews, swedes, as well as a smaller variance in intelligence, so you get higher average IQ, but at the cost of having less geniuses/retards at the tails. the only way to "breed" for high IQ without selecting for feminine traits is to constantly be at war, but again, this will be at the cost of the women in your gene pool, you will see more masculine, aggressive females. you can't have both. if you want to increase the average IQ, you're going to end up with more feminine society, but with less crime/innovation. if you want to increase the maximum IQ, you're going to need more war, but at the cost of the females of your gene pool. all of this is well known to breeders for centuries.

>>10824804

a meaningless number when you look at mtDNA differences between jews and non-jews in europe. and since intelligence is heavily inherited from mother you need to pay attention to it more than just gross percentages.

>>10824835
>it would be viable if there was an accurate way to measure intelligence

No, as long as your measurement is better than chance (and it is) it will work

>>10825016
>since intelligence is heavily inherited from mother
source pls

>>10818797
No, it were harsh conditions of Ice Age winters that increased the intelligence of modern humans. So the peak of genetic human intelligence was likely at the end of last Ice Age. Alternatively, there is a theory that human reproduction was still somewhat eugenic until industrial revolution. In which case the peak happened somewhere in 19th century.

Either way, we are in a downward trajectory ever since.

>>10825016
Intelligence is not inherited mitochondrially
also the ashkenazi have only been under selection for higher intelligence for 800 years.

>>10816365
Like this "nature" of society is different from genetic breeding.

>>10825200
*selective

>>10825064
>Intelligence is not inherited mitochondrially
Nobody claimed that.
>also the ashkenazi have only been under selection for higher intelligence for 800 years.
Cite? Jews were forced out of Israel by Romans long before that.

>>10825772
my friend you know very little about the jews
the ashkenazi are mostly central european converts form near the Caspian sea known as the Khazars they converted around the 8th century.
look up the khazarian mafia or the Kosher Nostra

>>10824622
The difference between them and sparta is that jews have maintained a form of culture and religion that encourages them to interbreed with each other and the fact that they've been under selective pressure up until recently that promotes high intelligence given that the job requirements they were able to get were generally required one to have a high intelligence and if you were a stupid jew in a world where almost every single person hated you it's not likely you'll survive long

>>10816365
>Is eugenics viable?
A better question would be
>Does it stop being eugenics if we don't know what we're doing?
It's always eugenics all the time. There is always an environment and it is always selecting for something, even if we don't care to find out what it is. Any social environment we maintain is selecting for something, and if we enforce that social environment with the intent of selecting for that something, it would be "eugenics", but if we enforce that social environment for other reasons, and simply chose to remain ignorant about what it selects for, it would suddenly no longer be "eugenics", despite being objectively identical.

>>10816365
Not if you continue to clamp and vaccinate.

>>10819345
frequently not "powerfully"

>>10826082
They're basically the ultimate social parasites
what's interesting is that their cognitive abilities are somewhat localised their visual spatial abilities are actually below average for europeans which means they're under represented in art or design, their linguistic and reasoning abilities are where they excel hence their prominent presence in finance, law and physics/maths.

>>10825781
>look up the khazarian mafia or the Kosher Nostra
How does this relate to the discussion here?

>>10825016
>intelligence is heavily inherited from mother
Did people actually believe that lie of an article?

>>10828686
I guess the conditions in the womb will have more of an effect of development than the 50% from her genetic factors might
though epigenetic effects are variable

Dude Intelligent people don't have kids because they are a hassle.

>>10817716
So you are saying that a tool using species with no natural defenses or weapons should select for... aesthetics instead of intelligence?

>>10829809
facial symmetry is associated with lower mutational load so it might not be all bad

>>10816365
Just trust the nature, how China achived high IQ.

>>10831226
Should have been inside enjoying their math books!

>>10831226
We've long since lost many of the selective pressures and the present grows more dysgenic by the generation

>This fucking thread again

>>10831226
Mei ban fa

I can't believe anyone thinks China is superior to anyone.

Eugenics is possible, and preferable, so long as it is not directly controlled (invasive privacy issues and weakening of rights) but is instead indirectly supported by elimination of dysgenic cultural habits and government programs in other words patterns in society which weaken us, such as welfare and handouts. While encouraging behaviors which produce healthy, intelligent citizens and subsidizing marriage between genetically fit couples.
In other words it's possible to create a eugenics culture which isn't invasive and has the long-term effects of making a healthier society.

>>10816804
>citation needed

>>10816365
Yes, Jews do it and promote it as bad to the west

>>10832411
OK so as a thought experiment, say you execute all 2 million imprisoned Americans plus everyone who has spent over a year in jail (1 - 10 million more). Will that, you think, improve the "stock"?

>>10832685
maybe >>10819570
you'd actively be selecting against genes that were deemede harmful to a society.

>>10816410
You are begging the question. Why would it be viable if you don't have moral scruples?

>>10816445
>In terms of actual eugenics, it's not explicitly discussed in the west; but one of the reasons for the university system is to provide a selective pool for "soft" eugenics whereby the less intelligent part of the population are excluded from the breeding pool during the years of prime fertility.
This is observably untrue. G is dropping, you only need to be in the top 50% of your race to get into college, and people don't have kids at ~20 unless they're dumb. If anything, this is having the opposite effect, as girls go to college and destroy their sexual market value.

>>10816455
That's a pretty shallow assessment. You're saying we shouldn't hurry evolution because, what, evolution has already gotten us here? Yeah. That was true when we were rodents, too. So?

>>10832685
Actually someone linked a video on that topic
>>10819570

>>10832721
feminism and female empowerment are dysgenic factors, but they don't have to be
welfare systems that weaken the selective value of men are dysgenic because women stop seeking men to breed with that actually deliver good families and instead focus on narrow aesthetic traits

>Eugenics
When will this pseudoscience die?

>>10832411
>such as welfare and handouts
Getting rid of welfare would take us back to the times when nepotism was king and merit matters less, which isn't what you want for a good society.

>between genetically fit couples
Practically implementing that sounds invasive

>>10819570
Jesus christ this guy is a joke
On his Patreon page he claims he's discovered:
>Proving that modern-day atheism is caused by mutant genes, the prevalence of which has been increasing in the population since the Industrial Revolution relaxed Natural Selection.

>>10832747
It's selective breeding applied to man it's hardly a psuedoscience

>>10832755
He made a fairly solid argument about execution

>>10832755
I'm not a devoted follower of dutton I think some of his ideas are a little off the wall but his willingness to discuss and bring light to factors that are not being voiced is greatly valued
I'm more a follower of Woodley's scholarship but they share a channel

>>10816673
This.

We have experiments on mammals that prove eugenics works, and it only takes several generations to significantly increase average intelligence of a population.

Anyone denying this is likely speaking out of moral panic.

>>10832770
He really didn't. After watching a few of his other vids it's pretty clear he doesn't know a thing about genetics and seriously lacks scientific training (his video on atheism makes this abundantly clear). The execution video is just 20 minutes of hypothesis with no evidence. He sometimes quotes studies (although there's no links to them) and then finds a way of interpreting the results to match his agenda. His extensions to them may sound like 'common sense' because there's no logical fallacies, but that doesn't in any way make them more correct than some other hypothesis.
Honestly if he posted his hypotheses in /sci/ they'd be lost as just another anon trying to rationlise his strongly held beliefs

>>10832852
His hypothesis for execution creating a tangible effect on the gene pool is definitely well within the realm of possibility as execution is a fairly strong selective pressure

>>10832852
he released a paper a few years ago with Flynn analysing the growing frequency of studies demonstrating the woodley/reverse Flynn effect of declining cognitive ability.

>>10832861
>is definitely well within the realm of possibility
Being within the realm of possible doesn't bring it any closer to being true than literally any of hypothesis that isn't logically flawed.

>execution is a fairly strong selective pressure
What does it select for?

>>10832876
>Being within the realm of possible doesn't bring it any closer to being true than literally any of hypothesis that isn't logically flawed.
It's not flawed really it's a simple idea on execution being a selective pressure which is a truth
>What does it select for?
Execution of criminals who commit severe enough crimes i'd liken the idea to removing aggressive animals out of the breeding pool when creating a new breed

>>10832876
according to his hypothesis it selects against violence or lack of self control in young men

>>10832884
did you know that rattle snakes have apparently become less rattley than they used to be?
the number of rattlesnakes that don't have a rattle is increasing because they're more easily hunted also the rattles themselves are thought to have been used as an adaptation to scare off large numbers of migratory bison, the louuder you were the less chance of being stepped on and killed

>>10832884
I wasn't saying it's flawed, just that's thee's no evidence to go with it. You see so many people on the internet believing in something out of what they call 'common sense' when all they've really got is an untested hypothesis that isn't logically flawed.

So you select against people who commit severe crimes, do you assume that there's some deeper genetic link between all people who commit sever crimes?

>>10832899
he's not the only one who has modelled this data on historical crime stats

>>10832899
>I wasn't saying it's flawed, just that's thee's no evidence to go with it.
The evidence is the same as one would discover for example when breeding a variety of squash to survive in a different climate which would be the discovery of the selective pressures this new climate would impose on it such as drought or soil type or anything else you can think of this same line of thinking and discovery would apply to the idea of execution being a selective pressure because it's the identification of something that would impair one's ability to reproduce successfully as in this case you would be dead

>>10832899
>So you select against people who commit severe crimes, do you assume that there's some deeper genetic link between all people who commit sever crimes?
Yes while there are definitely environmental factors that go into this there is almost definitely a genetic basis for it as in all things that we can do there must first be a genetic basis we have already made a few discoveries regarding this however they are controversial at best and taboo at worst see
https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.130

>>10832911
Ok I think you're not quite getting what I'm trying to say. When I say there's no evidence, I mean that there is no data/numbers/something that can be statistically tested. I know about selection pressures and how they work. Now where is some data that tests the idea that executions impose the same sort of selection pressure on genes that something simpler would apply. It could just be a random mixture of genes with some slight biases.

>>10832917
That is true that there aren't any data and numbers given how far into the past executions have been carried out it's a given there would be a lack the only provable thing is the fact that executions do impose a selective pressure as one would find it difficult to reproduce when you've been hanged

>>10832928
So anything that kills people exerts selection pressure? What sort of genetic pressure is exerted by car accidents?

>>10832955
I think it's too random

>>10832955
Car crashes are too random to be a true selective pressure where's execution can be called a selective pressure as it actively selects against people who commit severe enough crimes to warrant death

>>10816427
next levl polsci

>>10834094
But what if it's random who commits severe enough crimes (and gets caught)? Obviously we know from criminology how socially complex crime is and past societies has been so stratified and unequal that the genetic makeup would be randomised. Still, is there any data on any of this speculation?

>>10816427
delete this now!

>>10835175
The only data in regards to criminality is from a few studies that have found certain genes more prevalent in prison population from a historical point there isn't any specific data that goes far enough in regards to execution and it's not truly random and I think you have a misunderstanding on "random" as compared to car accidents which besides in the cases of retards being at the wheel is generally a random uncontrolled event that can happen to truly anyone with bad luck where's execution can only occur if a person commits a crime that is grave enough to warrant it which would be more a selective pressure than something random

>>10835175
Dutton's thesis is that if the punishment for a crime is death only those with the lowest self control will do it or those that are too dumb to comprehend the consequences. By purging these low IQ or self control genes you inevitably reduce their presence in the population over the long term.

>>10835175
>past societies has been so stratified and unequal that the genetic makeup would be randomised
How does this follow?

>>10816365
No, humans carry too many conflicting traits to select for that way. Best bet we have is genetic manipulation, improvement without the whole natural evolution shuffle.

>>10835484
>No, humans carry too many conflicting traits to select for that way.
The multitude of traits is the reason we can even selectively breed in the first place and with genetic engineering see
>>10817780

>>10835240
What about blind people? Are they not more susceptible to being hit by cars? Does that exert a selective pressure throughout the entire population against genes that cause poor eyesight?

>>10835351
For example, crime is much more prevalent among those who are impoverished, which in the past would be a random mix of all kinds of people because there’s no social mobility allowing for people with advantageous genes to rise up the ladder to success. All kinds of random genes are all equally stuck in the desperate situations that violent crime is associated with

>>10835484
>>10835703
both retarded posts

cslets, enginiggers and non-quant gen biobrainlets need to remain silent

>>10816365
Yes just kill all niggers

>>10818617
Breeding retards into existence breaks the NAP.
Also voluntary eugenics exists.

>>10835806
Honestly it's not that common for blind people to get hit by cars given that they are explicitly taught safety to not to get hit
>>10835812
Nice argument

genetic testing for embryos before birth, you take 10-20 embryos and only give birth to the smartest embryo.

The measuring of intelligence is not perfect and the genetic contributions to one person's intelligence is pretty complicated and messy. It would be a logistical nightmare. So I do not think it is viable.

Using eugenics to eliminate genetic disorders on the other hand seems much more viable. But even in that case there is still a basically insurmountable cultural/ethical roadblock. I assume it would also be very expensive.

>>10837697
don't the jews have a screening policy to eliminate certain diseases because of all the recessive disorders they harbour?

>>10838505
It is offered, not compulsory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim

There are many gene research programmes on Jewish genes, ranging from intelligence and unusual longevity to diseases such as Tay-Sachs.

>>10817394
>>10816435
>>10816821
>>10818617
>>10818797
>>10818895
>>10816667
>>10832747
>>10832955
>>10835351
brainlets

>>10816365
intelligence and selective breeding for humans are both a meme. Just don't racemix and have people want to learn shit. Mental capacity can be trained.

>>10839664
some people are genetically better at learning than others

>>10839664
>He thinks mental capability isn't inherently limited by their genes
shiggity

>>10816427
So cheeto Hitler was created to raise Jewish intelligence

>>10839435
Got anything to contribute here of your oh so great insight? Hm?

>>10840448
>cheeto Hitler
who?
Surely you don't mean (((trump)))?

>>10816365
NO YOU ANTISEMITE!
DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH!

>>10832748
>>such as welfare and handouts
>Getting rid of welfare would take us back to the times when nepotism was king and merit matters less
This is an emotional argument. You have a vision of what a welfare-less society looks like, that you gained by reading, watching television, and so on growing up. You don't want that, so you object to taking away welfare. I ask you to discard that mental trap for a moment and consider:
We know from biology and economics that when you want more of something, you create conditions which support it. In biology this is a selective substrate (like an agar plate) and in economics this is a subsidy. So then, what happens when we create a welfare state? We subsidize poverty which means we create conditions which favor its increase.
Another thing happens too. Because we redistribute wealth in such a manner, the middle class becomes a little encumbered, making it harder for the poor to rise in their status, and easier for the middle class to become poor. So that is two arguments in favor of eliminating a welfare state.
>>between genetically fit couples
>Practically implementing that sounds invasive
It could be, with our level of technology, as invasive as a driver's licence. At the age of 16 or 18 you go to your DMV and get a mouth swab which is processed to assign you a genetic profile. If you are a standard deviation or more above the norm, you get a tax or legal incentive to procreate. This is just one idea though, to fight the natural dysgenics of civilized society. Remember that doing nothing still drags us down (makes us less fit, less intelligent, more prone to extinction) over time.
>>10832685
>OK so as a thought experiment, say you execute all 2 million imprisoned Americans plus everyone who has spent over a year in jail (1 - 10 million more). Will that, you think, improve the "stock"?
I proposed nothing like this.

>>10841841
>I proposed nothing like this.
I know and I never claims that. What I proposed was a thought experiments to explore the outer end of the spectrum of possibilities. Some replies were a bit surprising.

>>10841977
what would 2% of the US male population look like?
That's about 3.5M people, actually much less than that since we're counting per generation, the problems are compounded because black female fertility is greatly dysgenic for intelligence at a worrying level in america

>>10840448
Cheeto is a fluke being bribed. He wasn't planned.

>>10842062
>what would 2% of the US male population look like?
Presumably that would reflect the prison demographics statistics precisely. Since there are few females in prison compared to males, I guess little will change regarding any dysgenics relating to female fertility.

Also, how would you handle 4 million dead bodies? I am not sure the prison population is fit for organ harvesting so you end up with a rather gruesome logistics problem.

I don't think any Western country has the stomach for anything remotely close to this (though China does). Instead there will come about the risk that someone makes an ethnic specific virus that will kill off large sections of the world population. It is known that many countries have conducted research into this but I sure hope none of this escapes a lab. the trouble is that with CRISPR/Cas9 etc. the tech will become available to larger groups.

>>10841841
>This is an emotional argument
It isn't, it's history. You're the one who gets emotional and starts playing mental gymnastics to prove to yourself that you're a clever rational human who can't possible have a wrong worldview. My vision of a welfareless society is based on history. I'm actually pretty right-wing but I'm not so plainly retarded as to despise even the slightest bit of welfare just because /pol/ told me to.

>We know from biology and economics that when you want more of something, you create conditions which support it.
That's a pretty loose and vague statement from which to start an argument.

>So then, what happens when we create a welfare state? We subsidize poverty which means we create conditions which favor its increase.
But since the invention of welfare the amount of poverty has decreased by an enormous amount. I'm not saying it's solely to blame or even is the biggest contributor, but that's clearly evidence against what you're proposing. The countries with terrible welfare today and also the ones with the most poverty. How exactly does welfare subsidize poverty as well? Sounds to me like a big jump to make so some more details would be nice

>fight the natural dysgenics of civilized society
There is little evidence of this

>>10832835
Such as?

>>10843751
hereford cattle

>>10842062
>black female fertility is greatly dysgenic for intelligence at a worrying level
Citation needed

>>10843754
>hereford cattle
Are these really especially intelligent?

>>10844611
oh you meant examples of selection for intelligence? I just replied with a commercial application of eugenics in general
there's a rat study where they bred those that were fastest at navigating mazes

>>10843687
>It isn't, it's history.
Be honest with yourself. It's media that you watched or read, which pulled at your heart strings. In other words, preconceptions of history you learned through emotional reinforcement.
>You're the one who gets emotional and starts playing mental gymnastics to prove to yourself that you're a clever rational human
This is projection. I made a simple request that you put your emotions away and consider an idea. You apparently could not.
>That's a pretty loose and vague statement from which to start an argument.
Not really. It's plain to anyone who has studied either of those fields and it isn't loose or vague being that I elaborated upon it.
>since the invention of welfare the amount of poverty has decreased by an enormous amount
This is flatly untrue. In the united States alone we have a deficit over 10 trillion dollars. That means every citizen is in debt. Born into it. That means every citizen of normal means has poverty.
Africa is a giant welfare experiment of foreign aid. We, the first world nations, have spent trillions on it. It has the poorest nations on earth and suffers from starvation.
>How exactly does welfare subsidize poverty as well?
I already explained this using two arguments. It subsidizes it by giving money to the problem, making it more attractive to be poor, so it incentivizes the poor to remain so. Next, it takes that wealth from the middle class, which encumbers those people and makes it both easier for them to slip into poverty and harder for poor people to afford being middle class.
What you seem to have trouble with is following where the money comes from. You take reports from welfare states at face value and remain unaware of the extreme debt of those nations. Economics has a saying that there are no free lunches. This is why: public debt. Evolution teaches us the same thing, in a different way. Nothing is for free.
>There is little evidence of
You lack the knowledge to see it and I am out of text space.

>>10843687
The reasoning for that assumption that we’re currently in a state of dysgenic’s is the fact that all selective pressures besides number of children is practically gone leading to a state where all potentially negative traits are no longer culled by any selective pressures leading to the idea of “lesser” bloodlines which have negative traits or just are particularly lacklustre being able to propagate and spread with ease some of these can be found statistically with the drop of IQ and increase in health problems in the first world and from a somewhat personal and anecdotal notice in an increase in individuals that in any other age would be called lesser and unfit appearing more to be not just the norm but something that is actively paraded

>>10846464
To add to this i’m not sure why anyone isn’t worried about this it’s absolutely appalling the lack of care about this pervasive issue

>>10816427
Couner: If Eugenics worked the jews are a really bad example given the amount of genetic diseases exclusive to jews.

>>10846488
Jews as a rule of thumb have a limited genepool to draw from given certain historical instances leading to an increase in inbreeding the proof of eugenics is in their intelligence however the negligence and dogmatic thought in their marriages is weaking them a clear sign of dysgenic which follows the same rules and ideas of eugenics however in the propagation of negative traits instead of positive even their dysgenic traits show the evidence of eugenics working for if we can breed negative traits than we can breed positive as well because all life follows the same laws of biology when it comes to genetic inheritance

>>10846464
could we take transgenderism as an example of that?