/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10916519
Too long-term. The future is genetic engineering, vat-grown organs, and prosthetics

Eugenics is the only way to stop the natural decline in fitness with removal of selective pressures as a consequence of modern life

>>10916519
It's not the future because "muh feelings" won't allow it to happen

>>10918244
Ethics aren't feelings. Ethics are facts.
Unless the ethics committee approves your experiment you don't get to do science.

>>10916519
Nope, it's not happening. EVER!

>>10918837
>ethnics are facts

>>10916519
Eugenics is an absolute necessity to ensure that we as a species retain a certain degree of fitness and even improve upon what our ancestors are capable of at a biological level and to ensure a societal hygiene of course steps must be taken to preserve the diversity of the genepool

>>10918837
Yup

>>10918837
>ethics are facts
You are making no sense.

>>10918858
You must maximize the amount of overall good and minimize the overall pain. And there's certain rules you cannot overturn like the sanctity of informed consent.
This is basic philosophy and unless you understand it you cannot do real science

>>10916519
What kind of resources are you looking for specifically something on genetics or breeding or a book on the topic of eugenics?

>>10918837
>Ethics are facts.
Hah! Nice bait.
>m-muh human rights! I need the right to give birth to 10 children who will end up stupid and will further destroy society as well as the environment
>obese people deserve to keep eating! So what their bad habits are costing the taxpayer millions and billions of dollars? They deserve the right to eat as much as they want, and the taxpayers will have to pay for it!
I can't believe people unironically believe this.

>>10918862
Comfort is more deadly than pain is. If society does survive, there will be a paradigm shift in "ethics" when people finally realize that feeding poor people who don't work only creates a dependent population and will prolong their suffering.

>>10918871
>>10918866
>let's beat the hell out of the liberal strawman
Making decisions for others is called paternalism and its condescending, especially when they are capable of making an informed decision. Learn philosophy and ethics. It's a mandatory course in every degree worldwide. You must be dropouts

>A retarded person is born
>Well, ethics tells me that I'm not allowed to leave him for dead like every other species of animals does. I guess I'll force the taxpayer to pay him tardbux and the retard will enjoy his life of joblessness, meaninglessness, eating unhealthy food, watching TV, and having disease associated with poor diet.
Can people stop pretending that a jobless, meaningless life of unhealthy food and TV is enjoyable? These people are all depressed.

>>10918875
The majority of people are barely capable of opening their front doors god forbid they have to make an informed decision

>>10916519
The future is either eugenics or idiocracy.

>>10918907
Then why haven't you kys'd

>>10918907
Surely they will eventually reach critical mass and just have their population stagnate

Yes. And the eugenic device is internet porn and social media. Incels with low self-control are being filtered.

>>10918837
The analytic school of philosophy still hasn't completed connecting ethics to pure logic and the Stanford Disunity Mafia basically says we don't have to right now

>>10919033
Based.

Eugenics are already in full swing. Itll never be publically available policy because democracy ensures the unfit have a say. The masses abhor eugenics because subconsciously they know theyd be the ones removed. Eugenics are therefore enforced by subliminal themes in mefia which program the masses to act as necessary without their knowledge. Idiots ITT cannot read between the lines. There is a worldwide eugenics program dedicated to developing two lower castes of workers and one much more ingelligent upper caste. If you dont know how and why this system is being implemented, you were very likely never genetically capable of the abstract reason required to. Thats ok, its all part of the eugenics.

>>10916519
Eugenics isn't the future of civilization. For the simple reason that traditional breeding takes too long and the genetic selection is still random. You will never remove undesirable genes that way, they'll always keep popping up.

The future is gene editing.

>>10919095
no the future is a combination of both
this idea of gene editing is a meme

>>10916519
So what’s going to happen is stuff like being “average” intelligence/height/strength/whatever is going to be reclassified as a medical condition and genetic fuckery is going to be the “cure”. It’s not going to be advertised as improvements or enhancements.

>>10916542
>>10919095
This. Once it's developed enough, everyone will be able to have tall, strong, high IQ children.

>>10919112
Just like people of average intelligence of 100 years ago would be retards today, the average will move right. An IQ of 100 in the next century will be Tao-level of intelligence.

>>10919095
Gene editing is implausible this century. Future is in embryo selection, powered by cheap whole genome sequencing and advanced machine learning to identify the most desirable genomes.

>>10916519
Here you go OP

People who disregard ethics are either children or brainlets

>>10919131
actually it's demonstrable that average intelligence 100 or more years ago was actually higher. we've declined due to dysgenic selection factors because the selection against stupidity has declined.

>>10916519
Eugenics would get hijacked by retarded oligarchs or political ideologues with no idea of how to implement it for the greater good, it would turn into a shitshow just like everything else the gubmint touches.

>>10919218
what are the callipers and rulers for?

>>10918907
>Blame it all on the blacks

>>10919231
what about a religion that had clear moral principles?

>>10919238
Any religion that had logical moral principles would debunk itself since faith is illogical and harmful.

>>10919232
Anthropologists measure skull features to make composite images of what the person might've looked like. Nowadays they probably just have a digital evaluate that does it automatically

>>10919242
humans are prone to religion and faith of some form, they are effective means of mass culture
and some have shown surprisingly eugenic selection effects

>>10919238
See Catholicism. It was a unifying force for the west but suffered institutional decay, it exists mostly on resource inertia at this point. It's principles are gone now, and it holds less and less sway

>>10919254
>humans are prone to religion and faith of some form
They're also prone to killing each other doesn't mean it has good effects long term.

>>10919261
vatican 2 was a con job

why were the protestants more successful then?

>>10919266
you either set up some defined morality code and ethical foundation or you end up with destructive hedonism

>>10919271
proofs?

We have THE LAW, people don't need morality.

>>10919136
>gene editing is impossible this century
I could see it being plausible for preventing genetic diseases caused by SNPs. For polygenic traits, ie. the stuff most people care about, you're likely right.

>>10919136
>>10919278
>gene editing is impossible this century
proofs?

>>10919242
that's an interesting statement. is not killing people, stealing, lying, or cheating on your spouse, or honoring your parents logically inconsistent?

>>10919232
You can measure nose width and hight, or other body parts and correlate them with averages in race.

>>10919291
It depends on the definitions of those terms and their motivations.

>>10919276
you think a society functions where people have no moral code other than the law?
see: detroit, chicago, cleveland, new york, los angeles

>>10919303
>you think a society functions where people have no moral code other than the law?
Yes it does in collectivist societies. Switzerland and Japan are majority non-religious.

>>10919229
How demonstrable?
Every source I've seen so far points to people being less intelligent. And it makes sense, given the poor conditions people lived in back then.

>>10919308
who said anything about religion? both of those examples are societies with strong moral codes, your statement was that the law replaces morality. can you think of an example or do you want to backpedal that statement?

>>10916519
>resources
https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

>>10919301
alright then let's use the easiest one for the sake of the argument. murder is killing someone who isn't an immediate physical threat to you or someone near you, and the motivation is divine command. explain to me how that "debunks itself"

>>10919297
Arabs have very narrow noses and are unintelligent.
Asians have wide noses and are intelligent.

The height correlation only makes sense because the better nutrition you have, the taller you are, and also the smarter you are, unrelated to genetic stature. Outside of that, there's no indication that one is related to the other.

>>10919303
Those are major economic/cultural global cities, the fuck you talking about?

>>10916519
>Is it truly logical?
No. Destruction of biodiversity is never rational.

>>10919341
Believing in divine beings is illogical and mentally ill so by definition that religion would be illogical.

>>10919329
I mean at the genetic level, look up michael woodley's research amongst others on dysgenic decline

>>10916519
at face value it seems like it would be overall gains, but I question what it would look like in practice. you have to throw some level of human rights out the window from the get-go because the bioethical answer is that "people have the right to have children other than for parenting concerns", so you'll have some conflict with the people and government in the first place. but if we ignore that, say it's in some kind of futuristic dystopian setting where no one is aware of the alternative, I feel like there will still be a strange dynamic to relationships. "are you sterile?" would be among the first date questions, you'd probably have a general group separation of sterile people from fertile people, where the sterile people recognize their own role is to be cut off from the future of humanity, and a large group of people with inferiority complex is breeding ground for revolución.
our tendency is to say "if only we could get rid of all that societal/emotional bullshit it would be plausible, but then you have to wonder what it is exactly that makes us human and what the goal of a human life is

>>10919343
That's why you have to purchase the entire starter pack >>10919218 .

It also comes with the IQ tests you need to make a complete correlation. The starter kit is only $499.

>>10919350
there are a lot of people there and thus a lot of businesses, is that what defines functional society to you? in spite of crumbling infrastructure and uncontrollable crime?

>>10919136
How the fuck do you expect to do embryo section? Won't you just kill the embryo attempting to extract its genome so you know what you are getting? And how do you expect to show a sperm cell from millions that is the best?
It would be a waste of time to just let all the embryos get fertilized and wait until later in gestation to extract out DNA.

>>10919367
From what I gather, his measure for intelligence is reaction time.
1. I don't know about the correlation between both, but I don't think it has any causation. If so, basketball players (who are mostly black) should be geniuses
2. Given his wording ("Victorian era") he seems to be measuring the intelligence of a pretty narrow group of people i.e. anglos. What about other white ethnicities? Meds, for instance, are a minority in America, but are the smartest of all white races. And non-white peoples? Do you really think that applies to asians, for instance? Given the very steep rise in the development of eastern asian countries
3. What's the size of his sample? And the scientific consensus on this? Why is the Flynn effect more widely accepted to measure populations intelligence's changes over time? (tip: it's not because of the politically correct)

>>10919343
I'm not sure that's a reliable system, black people are the tallest and have the widest noses. Also arabs aren't particularly unintelligent, they just have shitty governments and a shitty religion, they actually have a lot of innovation in science and math in their history. Most of the ones I've met who weren't refugees were very smart.

>>10919415
just read the literaature and you'll find out for yourself
what do you mean by "meds"?

>>10919364
so religious morals debunk themselves because they're religious and automatically illogical, got it

you have to separate the metaphysics of a religion from the proscriptive morality

>>10919361
I'm inclined to agree with you, but does artificial selection always destroy biodiversity?

>>10919429
Being illogical is immoral. Being religious is illogical. Therefore religion is immoral.

>>10919425
have you ever read a paper where the abstract looked retarded and been pleasantly surprised?

>>10919437
it depends on the selection criteria, your best option is to look at livestock selection models and their results, pedigree collapse can be a problem

>>10919443
au contraire, logic would not have you do something nice to someone else at your own detriment

>>10919444
there are multiple papers by different groups of varying quality asking fundamentally the same question looking at the available data and coming to conclusions based on that data

>>10919457
*very similar conclusions

woodley is just one of them

>>10919421
Their IQs are below 100
>I'm not sure that's a reliable system, black people are the tallest and have the widest noses.
They aren't the tallest. Those are central and northern europeans.
Also, my point still stands. Asians have wider noses than whites. Why aren't they dumber?

>arabs aren't particularly unintelligent, they just have shitty governments
The same could be applied to black people. They haven't historically contributed to science as a whole, but there are more individual black scientists than you would expect and african immigrants excelling academically in America.

>>10919425
>just read the literaature and you'll find out for yourself
I might. But, given the limitations I've already seem, the data seems too shady to give it any credibility.

>what do you mean by "meds"?
It's short for Mediterraneans. They are poor nowadays, but historically smarter than other european races (even today, they being a minority in USA doesn't prevent them for somewhat disproportionally high performing professionally, comparatively with other minority races). Also, remember that jews are mediterranean too (mixed italians with middle easterners).

>>10919455
Denying self-preservation is both illogical and immoral.

i don't see what's wrong with it. all we're doing is making sure the weak don't breed. the only thing we're stopping them from doing is having their own kids. not that complicated and it could significantly lower hereditary disorders in just a couple generations

>>10919465
and I say again what do you mean by meds? I'm a euro and saying meds is a very broad term
jews aren't meds only the sepahrdis are meds and they have below 100 average IQs the ashkenazi are the smart ones and they're genetically mostly central and eastern european

>>10919394
How does crumbling infrastructure come from lack of morals?

according to gregory clarkes research research on european birthrates historically the upper 50% by income had 40% more surviving children reaching adulthood than the lower 50% which imposed a eugenic selection gradient for intelligence

>>10919033
it won't be enough, we need to make to perfect VR and make sexbots a reality.

>>10919437
>does artificial selection always destroy biodiversity?
Yes and no. In practice, that's all we've ever seen it do. Monocultures are vastly considered more economical than whatever actual effort is necessary to make productive industry scale breeding programs, so any notion of using the natural economy as a baseline for breeding is out the window immediately.

However, just because natural human logic is insufficient for the task doesn't mean we can't find an engineered solution that lacks all the flaws. The hard problem here is that "loss of biodiversity" isn't some small flaw, it's a critical insurmountable obstacle unless proven otherwise.
>>10919447
>can be a problem
That's exactly the kind of mindset that fails to solve the problem. It's not just "a" problem; it's THE problem. There isn't some other one. The more we try to force life into a particular set of traits, the less diversity we have. Evolution in its natural environment creates multiple ways of achieving the same traits, and humans don't have the patience to wait for that, so they end up breeding monocultures instead. It's an insurmountable problem because of the timescales involved. We'd be better off with mass cryonics, which is also unsustainable.

>>10919503
mixed variety cropping systems were quite popular in the soviet union because they didn't have access to expensive pesticides, they suffered very low rates of disease because of it and high compensatory growth against abiotic factors giving them yield stability

that all went out the window when you could cheat selection with pesticides after the wall came down.

>>10919465
oh my bad, I thought you were saying that wider noses correlated to higher intelligence, you were just debunking the reverse statement.
I'm aware that there are individuals succeeding, but I'll believe that it's really just societal factors when I see a significant percentage of the whole population succeed. is that the case for African immigrants? I don't actually know much about that.

>>10919503
I should have said "can be a problem with some breeding systems"

>>10919478
are you asking me why it does? you can look at more than enough examples to conclude that they're correlated.

Benign eugenics should be instituted to stop the spread of genetic disease, but eugenics will become irrelevant once gene editing technology goes mainstream; then we can just fix what we don't like. A good eugenics book though is Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations by Richard Lynn. Picked it up by happenstance in the college library and read it cover to cover in a single sitting.

>>10918837
>Ethics are facts


Huh

>>10919475
are you implying that they could still adopt kids born from people above them in the caste? I'm seeing some child abuse problems in that route

>>10919136
>advanced machine learning
Modern machine "learning" is just modified genetic algorithms. In other words, the things we invented to try to analyze DNA. Your reasoning is literally circular because you don't understand the applied problem.

You're right about it not being viable this century though. Embryo selection is currently too risky to be mass-viable, so we'll need to work on our intercellular science regardless.

>>10918863
You tell me mate, I guess a book that tries to predict the future with and without, or any previous experiments list. Sorry if I am being dumb but I really don't know where to start, coz they told me in evolution class that every gene is important and we can't predict which gene will survive so eugenics in long run can cause genetic stagnation and kill us.

>>10918862
Care to extrapolate or source any references backing your claim? Any experiments or texts?

>>10919516
>that all went out the window
Yes, I already concluded the modern economics is incompatible with biodiverse reasoning.
>>10919522
In the context of "breeding systems," it is THE problem. Period. It doesn't stop being the entire problem in any type of breeding program.

>>10919576
you seem to be misinterpreting my words regarding breeding systems
there are multiple ways to achieve the selection process some excel at the short term but fail at the medium to long term because of pedigree collapse, I recognise pedigree collapse as the biggest long term problem with them.why else do you think I raised the issue in the first place?

>>10919526
You would have to demonstrate they have no morals first, then show the causal link to crumbling infrastructure.

>>10919076
Is it like the Indian caste system where they divided the society into 5 net groups??
1. Of religious text holders (the jews)
2. Of warriors (today's soldiers)
3. Of traders, workers etc. (White collar wage cucks)
4. Of farmers and servant ( plumbers)
5. Of untouchables (homeless, man scavenger)

>>10919596
you're forgetting the merchant caste

>>10916519
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pno6Ir_nDAQ

>>10916519
No.
>>10916542
genetic engineering is a dead end we won’t be able to untangle pleiotropy and quant traits. embryo selection will give miniscule benefits to the people that invest at the cost of being susceptible to market oriented selection of alleles that private firms have decided are important

>>10919600
ok kid, if you're soo smart, why is your neck a different race from your chest?

>>10916519
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/short-history-of-3rd-millennium/

>(3) Biosingularity
>We still haven’t come close to exhausting our biological and biomechatronic potential for intelligence augmentation. The level of biological complexity has increased hyperbolically since the appearance of life on Earth (Markov & Korotayev, 2007), so even if both WBE and AGI turn out to be very hard, it might still be perfectly possible for human civilization to continue eking out huge further increases in aggregate cognitive power. Enough, perhaps, to kickstart the technosingularity.

>>10919585
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying your category is too sparse. To actually engineer a working method of selection, ie., to make eugenics non-economic, you have to skillfully avoid EVERY form of biodiversity diminishing. Any time we fail to bear that concept first and foremost in mind, we open our reasoning up to fallacies that lead right back to the monoculture we're trying to avoid.

We can't afford to be imprecise about this issue because it's the one issue that could actually lead to our extinction. Any organic trajectory is more likely to result in some survival than a momentary ecological collapse that could kill off a monocultural homo sapiens.

>>10919616
So we're stuck with synthetic biology and that's about it.

>>10919661
not even that

>>10919642
yes and that is why I'm suggesting you look at some livestock breeding policies since they've been grappling with these very issues for decades in pursuit of profit.

>>10919672
managing immune, dev, metabolic, behavioral traits for cosmopolitan environment restructuring primates that have the capacity to destroy themselves overnight has never been “worked on” by animal breeders.

>>10919689
the same principles are transferable.

>>10919267
Less centralized and didn't try to be a governing body. I wouldn't call them more successful just less susceptible to entropy

>>10919716
what about the eastern orthodox?

>>10919671
Idea being we'll have to invent it first. Nature is already producing intricately balanced systems, so as with any sufficiently layered codebase, the simpler solution is to just reimplement it.

>>10919476
Ashkenazim ARE meds. They have little central european DNA due to isolation from goyim.
Sephardim are from the Iberian peninsula. Iberians are smart nonetheless. Even if they have low IQs they are closer to the Ashkenazim than any other race is.

>>10919519
>oh my bad, I thought you were saying that wider noses correlated to higher intelligence, you were just debunking the reverse statement.
>I'll believe that it's really just societal factors when I see a significant percentage of the whole population succeed.
What if most of the black population is held back by their unintellectual culture and being poor in general? It goes both ways.
When you have most of a population in the shitter but then every now and then exceptional individuals who removed themselves from that reality, you can't just assume they are simply in the right tail of the genetic distribution. There could always be other reasons, esp. when there is no bunch of peoples more genetically diverse than africans.

>is that the case for African immigrants?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-10-13/it-isn-t-just-asian-immigrants-who-excel-in-the-u-s-
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/12/31/the-impressive-intelligence-of-african-immigrants/
There are tons of other articles on this. You can look for them for yourself.

>>10919789
>Ashkenazim ARE meds. They have little central european DNA
what studies have you been looking at?

>>10919799
he’s right though they’re primarily italian, almost no germanic or slavic admixture.

>>10919806
one of the 4 main ancestral mitochondrial lineages is K2a2a1 from west/central Europe

>>10918837
Based and redpilled

>>10919799
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/10/did-modern-jews-originate-italy

As said on my other reply, look it up. A lot of sources pointing to that.
Makes sense that they are italians, since Italy is arguably the smartest country of Europe.

>>10918913
You dont need to kill people for eugenics just make sure they don't reproduce.

>>10916519
>Is EUGENICS the future of civilization?
No
>Is it truly logical?
No
>Also pls give me some resources.
Read up on ancient Greece, especially Sparta.
>Arigato gozaimaz
Dou Itashimashite.

>>10919076
Like how ants started to form colonies and differentiate classes

>>10916519
Eliminate genes for stupidity? Or eliminate genes for sin?

>>10918837
He's actually right de facto. /sci/ insists on being edgy and saying "huh wat bro ethiccs r dumb XDDDD", disregarding any sort of critical thinking.
Consider that this issue is fundamentally one of population, and the opinion of the mass majority of the population is that eugenics is bad. It will never happen as so long this is the case. So basically it'll never happen period because most of the population is already below the threshold of what is reasonably considered "unfit" for society.

eugenics will make communism possible (and of course every self identifying communist vehemently rejects it) and usher humanity into a space faring utopia

friendly reminder the society of star trek is the result of multiple "eugenics wars"

also, eugenics threaten the capitalist bourgeoisie, because it threatens their monopoly on the good genes that allow them to Lord over society as elites, therefore they encourage dysgenics for the masses while practicing eugenics amongst themselves

Anon, the Research Ethics Board would like to have a word with you.

>>10919992
WTF this reminder isn't friendly at all.

>>10916519
The future is unironically national socialism

>>10919575
>we can't predict which gene will survive so eugenics in long run can cause genetic stagnation and kill us.
Then they're idiots, Eugenics at its absolute core and basic level is the removal of detrimental traits such as inherited genetic illness the most fundamental principle of eugenics is hygiene anyone especially with a modern understanding of genetics will understand the necessity of heterozygosity and the preservation of genetic diversity however this does not mean the complete and absolute uniformity of our genes just a select few traits which we suppress and a select few traits which we try and propagate within the population.
>I guess a book that tries to predict the future with and without,
I don't think any exist that are written well enough if you want an understanding of some of the ideas of eugenics and proof that it works look into plant and animal breeding a good amateur plant one is called "Breed your own vegetable varieties by Carol Deppe" Which can give you a basic understanding of how we can select genes

>>10919503
Monocultures aren't a good example of it seeing as monocultures of one cultivar of plants is just that a single cultivar ignoring the literal thousands of other cultivars and their hybrids

>>10916519
No

>>10918850
Wrong, eugenics limits the range of human capability and stagnates the gene pool and probably will create retarded abominations like we do when dog breeding.

Dominant thinking kills.

>>10921111
“It wasn’t real eugenics”

Very time lol. Once you hand the power of selecting genes to a state they get more and more arbitrary about shit, every time.

>>10919999
Yet the elites tend to get inbred and mentally stagnant, so again, wrong. Limited genetics leads to dominant thinking when entitled shit brain NTs think their mediocre ass brains are the end all be all.

>>10920401
Bitch it lost why would we bring a loser ideology back.

Might as well call back the commies too gramps.

Trans humanist shapeshifter augmented networked society with robot slaves for everyone is where it’s at, not white boy land. It’ll be more fluid than that. Don’t fret it, you’ll love it too.

>>10921552
That's outright wrong any breeding program always requires a wide and diverse genepool eugenics is no different it's just applied to humans
>>10921555
Where did I say any of that? eugenics hasn't been active long enough to yield any noticeable results and the attempts in the early days were tainted by poor perception of heredity that the public held and a lack of proper and stringent selection criteria

>>10916519
sorry but our civilization is dying

>>10921559
They generally don't become mentally stagnant besides the extreme cases from the habsburg families

>>10918907
This.

>>10916519
Eugenics is already here pic related. JFL!

isn't china basically creating a eugenic selection gradient with their social credit system?
if you please the algorithm you get a reward if not you get punished by removal of priveliges?

>>10921908
Wealthy and intelligent East Asians don’t breed above replacement just like their western counterparts its only giving rise to even more stifling social conformity. If anything it will drive them into extinction vortex.

>>10921911
I saw an official paper a while back that showed the dysgenic decline in china. they estimated a significant erosion of IQ
I don't apparently have it saved, does someone recognise it?

>>10921726
It happens every fucking time. Modern society only avoids it due to generational wealth changes outpacing the dominant thinking cancer.

>>10921627
Eugenics is when you say the government should decide who breeds. It’s retarded and you are a useful idiot for thinking you should trust a fucking government with something like who gets to mate. That is the call of those who breed and those who breed alone. Often this is because eugenicists have some retarded ideological ideals you want to farm people to conform to, so you sterilize people to rig the system for the mediocrity you claim supremacy. Equalization and elimination of genetically inherited illness can be achieved with genetic engineering, no need to even have some state committee of politicos decide which people to sterilize. Even than your cult of genetic perfection is a scam and farce, the so called disabilities often can find power and use in ways separate from the mediocre you aspire humanity to stick to. Eugenicists in practice would want to also cull savants and narrow down us through a tunnel to which there is always a wall of cliff, the eugenics suicide cult coming back would likely end our species and all civilization. For all will be mediocre, all will be culled as the slippery slope of eugenics standards becomes more aggressive. It will ever stop at genetic illness, it always creeps, the definition of genetic illness also may shift.

Your order pathology is antithetical to life as is.

>>10921950
Absolute load of fucking nonsense "the so called disabilities often can find power and use in ways separate from the mediocre" They shouldn't have to by introducing basic eugenical practices we can eliminate the potential for most people to be born with these disabilities and to be as intelligence as the best of humanity or even beyond.
>Eugenicists in practice would want to also cull savants and narrow down us through a tunnel to which there is always a wall of cliff
It wouldn't in any way savants would be similar to genetic accidents found when selecting for a plant variety they obviously have value and those traits should be preserved and properly understood for selection into the wider populous
>For all will be mediocre
Only in the sense that the majority of people will be comparable to the absolute pinnacle of the current best
>the eugenics suicide cult coming back would likely end our species and all civilization
In what possible way would it end our species and civilisation?
>ll will be culled as the slippery slope of eugenics standards becomes more aggressive.
Literally a slippery slope fallacy with no basis
>It happens every fucking time. Modern society only avoids it due to generational wealth changes outpacing the dominant thinking cancer.
It doesn't

>>10916519
Stop thinking, stemfag. Try reading a book instead of skimming lecture notes written up by your midwit professors. It's so pathetic to see stemfags trying to think critically about anything

>>10922018
88% of all mutations effect the brain in some way we are 6 or 7 generations deep (depending on where you are in the world) into a non purging environment where deleterous mutations have been allowed to build up
historical high child mortality of 40% or more had a cleansing effect

>>10922029
Do you have a source for that?

>>10922018
Yeah, fuck that shit. I am against some state body acting like it knows what’s best when they often don’t and often fuck up massively like with the one child policy that gimped china’s ability to have adaptive populations or genetics for the foreseeable future.

As for eugenics standards, yes it will. Every statist approach has some bureaucrats moving goal posts on arbitrary bullshit whims, why the fuck would eugenics be any different?

Again I think you fail to see just how inferior eugenics is to actual transhumanism and augmentation or advanced cyborgization. You just want the lazy sterilize people approach, so unable to imagine yourself out of that linear mentality that is unable to work in adaptive chaotic systems like that which reality is. Your order pathology to turn people into rocks is a fucking farce. Might as well have the USSR, same shit just with genetics.

>>10922070
(Add)
Not to mention, if people will be all super humans from some state ran eugenics program ran by some clueless bureaucrats who would actually be the ones running it and not your imagined all knowing technocrats, let’s be frank here, Than I can shit unicorns,

>>10922070
The one child policy for china was needed they still have one of the largest populations in the world there are limits to just how many people you can support
>Every statist approach has some bureaucrats moving goal posts on arbitrary bullshit whims, why the fuck would eugenics be any different?
Because at it's core it's extremely simple and easy to standardize basic selection criteria that you honestly cannot fuck up
>>10922075
It would barely matter who runs it if the proper criteria and methodology is put in place

>>10922070
>Again I think you fail to see just how inferior eugenics is to actual transhumanism and augmentation or advanced cyborgization.
It cannot be inferior to something that doesn't exist

>>10922091
the chinese birthrate was already stabilising and correcting before they introduced the policy.

>>10922091
but who decides who decides the proper criteria and methodology = bureaucrats

>>10916519
Gene engineeringnis more efficient than eugenics.

>>10922123
Not really even the worst case scenario would involve a bureaucrat with an expert

>>10922130
gene engineering only works for defined gene relationships
we want the broad selective sweeps that eugenics offers

>>10918837
>ethics are facts

>>10918875

Half the population has a double digits IQ. Let that sink in. Half the population is composed of literal subhumans incapable of basic reasoning and problem solving.

>>10918862
>you must
I have no obligation to do anything. Good and bad have no objective foundation and merely boil down to "I like it" or "I don't like it". No matter how "good" something is for someone it will always be bad for another.
>basic philosophy
So because some dead guy said it, that makes it true?

>>10922552
>Half the population has a double digits IQ. Let that sink in. Half the population is composed of literal subhumans incapable of basic reasoning and problem solving.
Imagine falling this hard for the IQ meme

>>10922552
>Half the population has a double digits IQ. Let that sink in. Half the population is composed of literal subhumans incapable of basic reasoning and problem solving.

You are asserting that all white people were subhumans incapable of basic reasoning in the 1950’s

>>10922811
and you seem ignorant intelligence
genetically victorian whites had a higher IQ onaverage than modern whites
dysgenic decline is a bitch

>>10922826
>genetically victorian whites had a higher IQ onaverage than modern whites

They didn’t have IQ tests in Victorian times, so please provide a citation.

Simply put humans are ignorant and a danger to themselves, understanding of science and critical thinking are the tools humans require to survive and adapt.

There is no choice unless humans can somehow eugenically improve their intelligence they are very likely to die from a tragic and early death.

I believe that a license should be required where intelligence has been screened before being allowed to have children the cutoff should be above average so that The next Generation is smarter.

Another option is embryo selection for IQ genes

Legalize embryo selection for genetic trait prediction, maybe intelligence predictions will become standard for all births, better than nothing. Over time it would change the allele frequency in the ghettos

>>10922091
Questionable logic there, selection criteria? Who defines that, some random imaginary “expert” the politicos can ignore or play favorites on? Ever heard of Lysenko?

Again, this all sounds like communism. You are able to make a thing sound great on paper that on further scrutiny can easily go wrong. Eugenicists often branched towards arbitrary metrics like IQ tests to decide who is sterilized. Sometimes even political dissidents got deemed feeble minded. It’s arbitrary shit and will have biases that are arbitrary and even you already are showing this.

Letting some few who aren’t any better than the “stupid masses” you imagine define the genetics for everyone else, man that would be mass self mutilation of the human genome.

Again, this all too much seems like the typical authoritarian mind’s fear of life itself and the dynamic chaos to which it fundamentally works by. We may be able to direct factors at times, but efforts as intensive as eugenics would limit the scope of the species at best. At worst you end up with some stepford imitation humans who have no life to them who end up being more ants than humans and end up all following some elitist off a cliff.

>>10922875
>>10922900
These people show how Arbitrary metrics quickly can get in. IQ tests can be gamed and should NEVER be used to decide who gets sterilized and races are a wide range of people to the point it is a bad metric for decided who gets sterilized.

>predict intelligence

Not the only metric which defines human value or capacity to contribute to a society, if it even deserves their effort with this shitty mentality. Not to mention the wealthy would just bribe people to falsify results, that type of shit happens all the time.

>>10922938
there is already research on polygenic IQ calculators if it became more accurate then it could be used to determine intelligence from 10 embryos of which the best embryo would be selected by the parents if they chose it.

years of education can predict intelligence

>>10922938
>Not the only metric which defines human value or capacity to contribute to a society

not the only one but a very important one

>Not to mention the wealthy would just bribe people to falsify results

would they? wealthy are a small minority so it does not matter either way.

>>10919799
Have you people ever actually MET any ashkenazic jews.. ashkenaz means germany in hebrew; where do you think "berg" comes from or "stein".. ashkenazic jews are particularly intelligent because of the combination of german intelligence and jewish inbred neuroticism

>>10922965
ashkenazim are genetically closest to Sicilians according to this plot they are of mixed ancestry and the theory goes that they evolved higher intelligence in order to compete as bankers because they were barred from other fields of work.

this is not of much importance there are dumb jews and smart jews just like in europe or japan, it's a bell curve.

>>10922826
Literally been discussed before in this very thread.

>>10922965
They are called "german-jewish" simply because of the place they inhabited. People obviously didn't know about their genetics.
Jewish intelligence has nothing germanic or slavic about it.

>>10922951
“Accurate” on what metrics?

and yeah, I seriously question being able to predict someone’s life trajectory from an embryo. That requires an extremely essentialist world view that leaves zero regard for nurture.

The fixed mentality you promote is legitimately cancerous. The human brain is flexible and moldable. Slightly more and slightly less like that in pylogenics are not viable metrics. And again, which factors get looked at can be made arbitrary by some agenda driven fuck. You are delusional if you think a state would ever go about anything the way you picture it.

It’s also a defeatist mentality, trying to promote a antlike caste mentality through the social weaponization of DNA to bludgeon people into boxes.

>>10922961

>But a very important-
Let me stop you right there.

Why is it that people such as you forget that even if you have a broad stroke intelligence to look at, there is always the nurture side of things? Genetic predetermination is limited in that post birth factors can in many occasions matter more than what factors are found in a phylogenies test, Even that, is known to look at a fuzzy range of factors that is incomplete and unable to even do what is promised since these factors are societally and. Y extension, government defined.

>a small minority
A small minority but one which holds the bulk of power who would inevitably cheat such a system.

>>10922999
I don't know man years of education can be genetically predicted to some degree...
why not use that to give your kid the best chances in life, maybe one day people will promote embryo selection if it is found to be effective for polygenic traits

>>10916519
Eugenics is retarded and failed in literally every society that attempted it.

There’s no universal metric for desirability and none will ever be created due to the uniqueness of individuals. Why would you even attempt it?

>>10923019
Hardly the only indicators. One would think parent income would play a bigger factor. An idiot with a billion dollars can be more “successful” than someone intelligent born in a ghetto since one is going to get easier access to education.

>>10923046
you cant reject that genetics are a factor in determining intelligence, it is a trait influenced by both environmental and genetic factors, hence the flynn effect was the result of increased eduction over the 20th century

>>10923038
Pretty much.

Eugenics is basically trying to force societal and cultural ideals on biological development. As is pure breed dogs are notably less healthy than mutts, the eugenicists try to hide stuff like that. Not to mention it creates a strong risk of genetic bottleneck and suspect ability to disease due to means of adaption being reduced from selective cutting of people based on their genes.

>>10923097
Except that the Flynn effect shows environmental and educational factors, along with a wealthier overall world? Genetics as a factor is overrated and questioning those who emphasize genetics as a factor matters as I find such people are often agenda driven and interested in trying to create some caste society where social mobility is cut down.

>>10919642
The obvious solution is to not modify everyone. We would need a strategic reserve of people like the amish as a genetic backup.

In an utterly theoretical sense, eugenics would be great. In any real scenario, human beings would be terrible at assessing, predicting, or choosing these things. If a government can't even plan an economy intentionally, how would they be able to plan a population? The state would end up selecting for, like, performance on the psat or stupid shit

>>10923157
Recommending eugenics anywhere in the real world is like recommending that the Soviet Russian bureaucracy replace your body's natural homeostasis preserving mechanisms

>>10923198
how do we know it will cause any bad side effects?

somebody needs to do a research study on this to see if embryo selection or the use of gamete donation from intelligent individuals could have any downside, for all we know it would just lead to some utopia where everyone is more educated and successful, without any detrimental effects to the biodiversity or genetic diseases.

>>10923249
I mean, if you buy the argument about the selection of Ashkenazi Jews on the basis of numeracy/IQ (which I'm not sure I do, but a lot of eugenics-favoring people tend to) then selecting for smart people seems to causes an increased incidence of horrible genetic diseases

>>10923110
pure bred dogs are not inherently less healthy than mongrels it is very dependent or the applied breeding system

>>10923289
"A genetic bottleneck followed by the recent phenomenon of rapid population growth are likely to have produced the conditions that led to the high frequency of many genetic disease alleles in the Ashkenazi population."

https://www.nature.com/articles/5201156

>>10922797
It's almost like...IQ correlates with intelligence and is the best measurement for it...

if eugenics is the issue why don't we just remove the factors that actively cause dysgenic selection pressures like effectively paying the unemployable to have kids?

>>10923342
Wrong, mutts are almost always healthier than pure breeds.

>>10923426
you replied to my conditional statement with another conditional statement?

20% of the population is estimated to be dyslexic to some level yet 40% of all self made millionaires are dyslexic

how does your selective policy deal with that?

GMO would be better and even more logical. We can optimize anything with science, screw tradeoffs.

>>10919242
Empiricism relies on faith.

>>10922938
>He thinks there’s no link between wealth and IQ.
Read “Coming Apart.”

/lit/ is better at these threads than you guys are honestly.
No one should ever put anyone from /sci/ in charge of other people ever. Every argument here is asinine, unserious, and probably just and ego trip for whoever posted it. That is, when it isn’t simply someone spouting an ignorant opinion because the topic is hot.
There are also way too many people who deny the significant genetic role, and importance of, IQ. There’s nothing more gross than seeing someone’s ideological lense skew reality so hard as to allow their moral framework to maintain itself when put into reality.
Lefties are gross but the pro-eugenics side isn’t doing any better. Honestly this whole thread should be deleted and this topic should be banned. Nothing productive came of if.

>>10916519
Research ethical eugenics. There is a lot written on the subject. It is the future.

>>10916576
>implying the incel's rage isn't the product of modern selection

>>10923610
No one cares

>>10923351
Is it?
A better, more objective measure would be life achievements, be it accrued wealth or career performance.

>>10923505
>20% of the population
That's a pretty huge percentage, anon.
If so, dyslexia shouldn't be considered a disability, but a common deviation from the norm.

>>10922927
Lysenko literally didn't believe in genetic heredity
>Eugenicists often branched towards arbitrary metrics like IQ tests to decide who is sterilized.
Again old methodology that can be fixed the sterilization is only required for people who have a genetic illness everything else can be bolstered by a positive eugenics where in instead of outright sterilization of the inferior it would be the promotion of those who meet a new criteria such as high intelligence or a general history of good health all of which can be promoted to have more children through basic ideas such as additional government funding for more children as one of the reasons the more intelligent generally have less children is that they can research and understand fully the costs involved
> At worst you end up with some stepford imitation humans who have no life to them who end up being more ants than humans and end up all following some elitist off a cliff.
Again absolute horseshit with nothing to back it up

>>10923011
>Genetic predetermination is limited
To a degree ultimately everything that is human is defined genetically one of the many goals of eugenics would be to make the common man similar to the best of man genetically and allow their potential to be much higher than the common man of today
>A small minority but one which holds the bulk of power who would inevitably cheat such a system.
Barely matters at a high enough scale the geneflow between the two groups will inevitably end up in the same end result

>>10923289
Do you just have no idea how heredity and traits actually work? the Ashkenazi jews generally breed only within their group and their population had a sharp decline due to a certain event

>>10923519
Eugenics is a science you idiot and gene editing can only focused on defined genes that we know the functions of not wide scale changes
>>10923982
That's a more subjective measure since a large portion of that isn't exclusively due to intelligence

>>10924094
>Eugenics is a science
No it's really not. It's a crapshoot.

>>10924077
Lysenko was an example, his views was not what I was discussing.

That being said I do not have any trust of any authority on who should breed regardless and believe that genetic illness can be solved through gene therapy and stuff that isn’t built on caste concepts such as genetic predetermination.

>>10924112
when I breed my cattle I cull out those that don't work or breed them to a beef sire

>>10924122
That is precisely the mentality I would expect from the likes of you.

>>10924112
Then we simply cannot come to an agreement

>>10924130
Actually no, I'm just a passing observer making a remark, I've not been involved in your discussion in his thread, take that as you will.

>>10924155
Either way, you’re no rancher.

>>10924195
no I'm a dairy farmer, ranching is a much more extensive system
we put about 40% of our cows to a dairy sire every year with the goal of breeding to replace about 1/5 of the herd yearly the 20% dairy bulls and the other 60% with beef sires are raised for meat

>>10924101
It literally is the same science that we've used on plants and animals just applied to humans there is no intrinsic difference as we all follow the same laws of heredity

>>10924255
The difference is we don't understand completely the hereditary basis of intelligence in humans. Yeah we could use eugenics to make people tall or look a certain way or whatever but why bother.

>>10924265
We do understand and it's been estimated to be 80% inherited and health and such things are other inherited traits everything that constitutes a human on the biological level is inherited

>>10921950
>It’s retarded and you are a useful idiot for thinking you should trust a fucking government with something like who gets to mate.
yes, it's a great idea to have welfare and freedom of reproduction. there can be no negative consequences of this at all. neither to the gene pool which now has little to no selective pressure on resource acquisition nor to the children born to abusive and/or negligent parents.

>>10924292
The fuck you on about? You bitch about welfare but than think that same elite can be trusted with deciding who is allowed to be born?

>>10924282
>80% inherited
What does this mean exactly?

>>10924292
>yes, it's a great idea to have welfare and freedom of reproduction
It is.

>the gene pool which now has little to no selective pressure on resource acquisition
Elaborate please

>>10924866
historically there was 40% child mortality that effectively purged harmful mutations
look at gregory clark's research
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10181.html

>>10924866
intelligence in adults correlates genetically from 60-80% increasing as you get older search for Robert Plomin

>>10924887
[the end was cut off]
*search for Robert Plomin's research for a decent summary
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf

>>10924887
>40% child mortality that effectively purged harmful mutations
That doesn't really make sense to me, why would 40% of all children dying select against general harmful mutations? Most child deaths were historically from diseases so that selects against poor immune system babies and for strong babies, leaving all kinds of mutations that wouldn't make a difference. Selecting against the weak is probably the most generic selection in the animal kingdom. I haven't read that book nor can get access to it, does it say more in there or in some particular bit of research? I couldn't find much on it

>>10924920
the book was just one example he's put out quite a lot of research in various publications

we have this idea of the survival of the richest, whereby the half of the population above the median point by income had 40% more surviving children per generation than the group below which imposed an ability based selection gradient and gradually worked a purging selection ok against harmful mutations, nowadays with modern living standards and effective costs of every child these selection gradients have reversed with more the economically successful actually having decreasing numbers of children while the lower group increase
there are figures that show that in some places the only groups where population is increasing at above replacement rates is where both parents are on welfare and jobless.
whatever your own position on these statistics they're very concerning

>>10924887
>intelligence correlat-

Correlation is not causation. For someone happy to throw studies around to justify sterilizing people some bureaucrat decides suck, you seem to miss some really basic fundamental shit.

>>10924094
>That's a more subjective measure since a large portion of that isn't exclusively due to intelligence
More subjective than a test that
>is arbitrary?
>is unable to directly measure correctly people with (1) different intellectual profiles from an artificial, skewed norm and (2) learning disabilities?
>has largely misinterpreted aggregate scores?
>has to have its average adjusted every now and then because it was poorly designed, not taking into account changes in average intelligence over time?
>except for people with extremely low scores merely CORRELATES with what it's trying to measure (intelligence and its effect on life achievements)?

There was literally a study spanning decades that analyzed the life success of bright kids. None of them achieved anything meaningful. Whereas two of the kids who were rejected went on to become fucking Nobel Laureates.
You could argue that getting a Nobel prize is not a synonym for intelligence, but it's more comprehensible of a lifetime of not only having innate skills applied to science but also of the smart choices of (1) developing said skills, (2) learning where to apply them and (3) getting the right timing to that application.
Who is to say that, hadn't the circunstances not favoring those 2 Nobel laureates, they wouldn't realize that, apply their skills somewhere else and be equally successful (or at least above average for their fields)?

>>10925057
correct correlation is not causation but what other significant causal pathway is there?

>>10925057
Correlation implies causation. It does not conclusively prove causation, tough. But if there is a correlation, then you better come up with specific reasons why there should not be a causation, too. Otherwise a reasonable person ought to assume causation by default.

>>10925060
(cont.)
It takes someone smart to specialyze in a highly abstract and analytical field, we all know that. But it takes someone even smarter to realize when that specific place has been taken, then choose to specialyze in a different, less popular and equally abstract niche or go for a more theoretically shallow field but make a deep, creative application of it.
I see
>Jack
Who is dyslexic, got a business degree from Nowhere College with a 3.0 GPA and went on to start a huge company and make billions of dollars

as smarter than

>Jeff
Who got his PhD in String Theory on MIT but never proved it to be scientific and has to deal in a day-to-day basis with insufferable academia politics because of his mediocre salary and lack of marketable skills to get a better job.

>>10925060
>There was literally a study spanning decades that analyzed the life success of bright kids. None of them achieved anything meaningful. Whereas two of the kids who were rejected went on to become fucking Nobel Laureates.
bullshit

>>10925062
But if there is a correlation, then you better come up with specific reasons why there should not be a causation, too. Otherwise a reasonable person ought to assume causation by default.
>reasonable person
No. That makes them unreasonable. Science doesn't care about your feelings.

>>10925064
>find hard evidence that contradicts my agenda
>act irrationally and call it BS
Smart move, anon.

>>10925062
>But if there is a correlation, then you better come up with specific reasons why there should not be a causation, too. Otherwise a reasonable person ought to assume causation by default.
>reasonable person
No. That makes them unreasonable. Science doesn't care about your feelings.

much of academia suffers from the sausage mincer problem where everything is minced into one homogenous "product" for employers and the degree is just a commodity for signalling salary employment skills, direct creativity and original thought are somewhat harmed by this process
dyslexics are somewhat hardwired for creativity due to longer neural pathways and can be more resistant to it but less good at excelling in the academic environment.

>>10925061
The data, what people did they do the case study on and was it actually random? What’s the economic factors? What’s the cultural background of the people involved? Are these people the product of some survivor bias in the filtering process of participants?

Also doing a bit of reading, I don’t see how Plomlin’s research affirms eugenics at all. If anything, he showed you can’t magic autism out as the genetic factors for autism are too intertwined, same with intelligence and other mental health disorders.

Overall I do believe eugenics is ineffective at everything it aspires to and also does so by infringing on people’s reproductive liberties. There’s nothing eugenics can do stuff like Better education and health do not. Nothing, not to mention the optimization delusion ignores that heterogeneous systems are often so much more adaptive than homogenized ones. We see this time and time again with the failures of command economies, how is applying a command logic to genetic selection any different? I swear, eugenics people aren’t much different from communists in their ability to read their way into logic traps.

>>10925068
bullshit as in there is no such reputable study

>>10925070
All of science is just correlations and then a plausible mechanism behind them.

>>10924887
clark
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54515/1/WP181%20revised.pdf
rich people have more kids...

>>10925083
>We see this time and time again with the failures of command economies, how is applying a command logic to genetic selection any different?

Why are you assuming command economy? The most likely eugenics solution seems to be embryo selection, enabled by cheap whole genome sequencing and advanced machine learning. There will be no command, parents will flock to this in order to give their child a potential head start in life on their own.

>>10925097
not from 19th century onwards

>>10925089
Go read Outliers. It talks about that study.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29?wprov=sfla1

>but it's PC propaganda
>it cares more about feelings than actual science
If you think like that, you're the one being unscientific. The scientific method demands you investigate deeply before jumping to any conclusions. So read it, analyze it, then see if it's bullshit or not.

>>10925083
I wasn't bringing Plomin's research into any form of connection to eugenics but he's an authorative study on the link between genes and all human behavioural traits including intelligence.

he actually reaffirms the importance of social mobility because of the effect of reversion to the mean whereby the children of the smartest parents on one generation will not be the smartest of their generation.

>>10925083
>here’s nothing eugenics can do stuff like Better education and health do not. Nothing
they only work at the short term, eugenics is necessary for long term maintenance or improvement of a population potential. you can't educate dumb people to be more intelligent

>>10925100
yeah that's the very worrying part since it means you have a reversed selection gradient for ability to earn wealth...

>>10924863
It means the IQ of the parents is a highly heritable trait

>>10925108
Why do jews emphasize education and have high IQs then? Are you gonna say it's their smarts who make them value education? Maybe. But I'd argue it's not that simple, because it has only happened to the jews, who are a tiny tiny fraction of manking.
Dumb people can value education and prioritize it for their children, who in turn get higher IQs and pursue equally smart or smarter partners, having smart children.
Also, there are tons of innately smart people who are born out of stupid parents. How are you gonna predict that?

>>10925121
of course you're a jew why didn't I realise sooner.

>>10925092
That isn't how science works at all....

>>10925121
>there are tons of innately smart people who are born out of stupid parents. How are you gonna predict that?
reversion to the mean

>>10925141
I'm black and from a third world shithole. Not everyone is what you picture, anon.

>>10925144
Reversion to the mean is not a physicial force of nature, anon.
Nature doesn't look at populations and think "well, those parents better have a smart kid, or the average IQ will go bellow 100. I can't let that happen". That's why the Flynn effect makes the threshold for a 100 IQ be adjusted to be higher and higher as time goes by.
We just have a flawed and incomplete way to measure intelligence, that's why it has to be fixed to accomodate shit that science didn't know of before.

Eugenics is the past. Sweden started it. USA grew it. Nazis finalized it. Yet look at all 3 countries today.

Life is crazy and uncertain enough. Eugenics is chump change.

>>10925121
>Why do jews emphasize education and have high IQs then?

Genetics.

>>10925143
But it is.

>>10925158
the flynn effect is due to training effects from life in more developed societies on certain tested components pulling up he
if you look at non-trainable elements there has been a decline

the average IQ can't fall below 100 because 100 is the average the only way we can truly compare generations is through purer tests with lower correlations individually to try and estimate G
what even is your point here? nature isn't predictive only that which is able to survive and reproduce is selected for
intelligence is a depressing topic to research because of the conclusions.

>>10925060
>There was literally a study spanning decades that analyzed the life success of bright kids. None of them achieved anything meaningful. Whereas two of the kids who were rejected went on to become fucking Nobel Laureates.
Way to completely mischaracterize the Terman gifted children study. The children in general were far more successful than average, with many becoming professors etc. Pic related is the summary, or read it here: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1947-terman-thegiftedchildgrowsup.pdf
Complaining that none became nobelists is retarded, as that ignores the base rate of winning a Nobel (what, a dozen winners a year out of billions, you would not expect a sample size of a couple thousand to contain a nobel winner. William Shockley, one of the Nobel winners you refer to, supported the Repository for Germinal Choice (and donated to it).

The major problem with intelligence testing of children (as in these studies), is that they have not reached their peak in terms of genetic influence (which occurs in early adulthood), therefore there is room for regression to the mean for any outliers.

>>10925158
the flynn effect is due to training effects from life in more developed societies on certain tested components pulling up the average.
If you look at the less-trainable elements there has been a statistically significant decline

the average IQ can't fall below 100 because 100 is the average the only way we can truly compare generations is through purer tests with lower correlations individually to try and estimate G
what even is your point here? nature isn't predictive only that which is able to survive and reproduce is selected for
intelligence is a depressing topic to research because of the conclusions.

>>10925149
>I'm black and from a third world shithole.
Now that explains a lot..

>>10925180
God is a plausible mechanism. You better come up with specific reasons why it's not, or else we have to take it seriously.

>>10925183
>If you look at the less-trainable elements there has been a statistically significant decline
Are you the same guy who posted about reaction time? Or are you talking about other elements? And how were those elements measured before? Did they use a lot of data?

>the average IQ can't fall below 100 because 100 is the average
It is not automatically the average. Once the average IQ goes beyond 100 - let's say to 105 - the 105 becomes the new 100.
You're sticking too much to formal definitions.

>what even is your point here? nature isn't predictive only that which is able to survive and reproduce is selected for
My point is that people here are too quick to jump to conclusions. Even if there are lots of studies on it, most of them are on samples of questionable size and skewed data because the ones making them have other interests than simply understanding the topic.

>intelligence is a depressing topic to research because of the conclusions.
There are no conclusions because
(1) The only people currently interested in researching it are white supremacists looking for validations to their agenda
(2) Whereas the rest of the academia completely ignores the topic because it MIGHT contradict their politically correct agenda

>>10925247
if you think it is only that very small group of "white supremacists" you are very much mistaken. They might be the more vocal within the media sphere that you're familiar with but it's a very serious issue. Actual legitimate data driven researchers have been harassed for simply publishing papers that attempt to explain distributions
this ideologically driven mob justice is harmful to any decent scientific debate

>>10925257

of course, i'm sure there are groups of people who want a private monopoly on genetic fitness, and the only way to do that is by making the public willfully ignorant to human darwinism. it has nothing whatsoever to do with social equity. just the opposite, in fact.

>>10925182
>Way to completely mischaracterize the Terman gifted children study. The children in general were far more successful than average, with many becoming professors etc.
You're implying that they becoming professors or anything else is impressive or predicated on having a high IQ. Have you ever been to college? Maost professors I've seem are competent at their fields, but don't show any kind of exceptionality outside of it.
I'm talking REAL achievement here, not becoming a manager of something or a PhD. Those titles, even if they are above average, are shared by many people and don't require exceptional smarts to be attained.
I don't see how they having high IQs has any meaninful relation to their achievements, because I've seen plenty of people not really far from average get to the same positions without having an extraordinary delta of effort in comparisoj with high IQ individuals.

>Complaining that none became nobelists is retarded, as that ignores the base rate of winning a Nobel (what, a dozen winners a year out of billions, you would not expect a sample size of a couple thousand to contain a nobel winner.
So why of all of those gifted people, none of them got, and the ones who got were rejected?
Note that I'm not talking about people who have high IQs that just didn't happen to try and be part of the study, but people who tried and didn't make the cut.

>William Shockley, one of the Nobel winners you refer to, supported the Repository for Germinal Choice (and donated to it).
Not related to the argument. Darwin is said to have denied natural selection on his deathbed. Doesn't make it less true.
Also, it sellected for Nobel laureates, not for high IQ. By that metric, none of the gifted children of the Terman study would qualify. Doesn't change the idea that IQ is an incomplete measure of intelligence and life achievements.

>>10925185
I'd expect a more rational approach than an ad hominem attack coming from what I think is a white male of (supposedly) high intellect living in a developed country. Thanks for letting me know I was wrong

>>10925257
Where are those researchers? Can you give me examples?
Is their data comprehensible? Did they study people from outside America? Did they analyze other ethnicities with the same level of precision that whites and jews have been analyzed?

>>10925202
God is not a plausible mechanism.

>>10925276
Hard to have a rational approach when dealing with an irrational debater. Most of your points can be summarized as "hurr durr there are some exceptions and hence correlation is magically invalid". Except that is not how statistical reasoning works at all. Now either you dont know this and are thus too dumb to debate with, or you know this but refuse to admit it, because it threatens your self-image as a brown person.

>>10925269
>IQ is an incomplete measure of intelligence and life achievements.
I don't think anyone disputes that
but it is the single metric that has he best correlation with success
even the better correlated combined metrics usually have IQ as quite a significant component

>>10925278
it was a while ago that I was reading about them but I don;t believe any of them was american I think at least two were russian and one was iranian

>>10925269
>Doesn't change the idea that IQ is an incomplete measure of intelligence and life achievements.

Does not need to be. It only needs to be bettter than chance to be valid and useful. And it most certainly is.

>>10925062
>Otherwise a reasonable person ought to assume causation by default
Not a scientific person though

>>10925278
why do you keep asking about jews? are you sure you aren't jewish?
what even is white it seems a very broad term any notion of groups based on colour seems flawed if you mean euros then say so?

>>10925269
>You're implying that they becoming professors or anything else is impressive or predicated on having a high IQ.
Compared to the average, yes. The rate of becoming a professor in any discipline is tiny for the general population.
>So why of all of those gifted people, none of them got, and the ones who got were rejected?
They missed a very high cut off of 140. The group who missed the cut off would number 10s of thousands, and if they had followed them they would have achieved less overall, as there was also a graduation in ability between those of 140 IQ and 160. That two outliers exist in such a large group is not surprising.
It demonstrates a) measuring IQ at age 11 is not perfect, as I stated there is a higher degree of influence from the environment at that age and a degree of regression to the mean by adulthood b) IQ is not the only thing of importance for success, especially for a subjective award like the Nobels.
>By that metric, none of the gifted children of the Terman study would qualify.
Actually the entry requirements were rather broad for the sperm bank, what with the difficulty of persuading old Nobel winners to spunk in a cup, but you should check out the results, there has been a little follow up and in general, despite fairly average mothers the kids do pretty damn well.
>Doesn't change the idea that IQ is an incomplete measure of intelligence
Of course, it's a paper and pen test, what do you expect, perfection?
>and life achievements.
IQ is not a measure of life achievement at all, it just correlates very well with them.

>>10921111
>Breed your own vegetable varieties by Carol Deppe
after reading through the amazon reviews there appear to be some minor issues with this book not least that it's from 2000 is there anything with better exploration of the topic and a little more recent?

>>10923150
We'd likely need several backups to ensure continued interbreedability and ensure that the backups do not become obsolete simultaneously.

>>10925345
There truly isn't all that much difference between 2000 and 2019 in regards to selection criteria and how you actually breed and select new varieties it's all pretty uniform at this point for amateur plant breeding unless you simply want an understanding of genetics instead of an understanding of how breeding for traits works?

>>10925282
Sick science bro. Somebody get this man a Nobel prize.

>>10918837
If you code those ethical "facts" in a computer program, it will have full of bugs.