/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11046137
hey /pol/ wutup

linguistically "eugenics" breaks down to "eu" and "genics"

"eu" means "good" and "genics" means "birth" or genetics

so already we see that the concept relies on subjective judgements of what is "good" as in the "eu" of "eugenics".

so basically it is not science, just value judgements. prove me wrong.

>>11046137
why wouldn't it be? If it isn't then neither is evolution.

>>11046137
another iq thread 2.0

>>11046149
So Medicine is not a science either.

>>11046149
>reddit spacing
opinion disregarded. try again next time

>>11046149

Alignment with nature and darwinsim is not subjective.

You select for positive traits relative to your environment. What will help your descendants not only survive but prosper. Maybe even become dominant.

So in our current context. You'd select for:

Physical and neurological fitness.
Intelligence
Strength
Longevity
Virility
Aggressiveness

More or less in that order. If we'd started doing this even two hundred years ago, we'd be selling hotdogs on the moon by now.

>>11046235
Obviously

>>11046270
Traits like complacency and obedience could prove be beneficial. It all depends.

>>11046137
It's just the application and study of human genetics and heredity applied through breeding there isn't anything that doesn't make it a science
>>11046149
see attached

>>11046137
Sure it's under the branch of genetics I don't see why not, it's just politicized

>>11046270
rapists and sociopaths have more children than average. Should we select for either?

>>11046270
>appeal to nature

>>11046414
>hurr durr who says intelligence isn't a NEGATIVE trait?
You're being obtuse.

>>11046414
>selective breeding is a fallacy
better go tell farmers that the way they've been domesticating crops for literally thousands of years is wrong and tell my beagle he's actually still a wolf

>>11046493
>false equivalence fallacy

>>11046149
You can use scientific methods to obtain things that are only subjectively valuable. Which is literally everything, because there is no inherent value in anything other than what someone ascribes to it. All you've done is claim the goal of eugenics is subjective, which is true. You could selectively breed humans for any traits you consider desirable. This has literally no bearing on whether selective human breeding can be performed in a rigorously scientific manner. It can. Therefore, eugenics is a science.

>>11046137
absolutely. yes.

you can breed out disabilities and racial superiority like height, longer legs, musculature.
Chads are a product of Eugenics. The beautiful do eugenics subconcioussly or they learn it culturally traits that are considered objectively aesthetic among humans are eugenic.

>>11046499
eugenics is literally by definition selective breeding (and occasionally selective mass murder, which is known as "culling" when we do it to cows, fish, etc)

saying the selective breeding of humans is not equivalent to the selective breeding of any other animal is blindly anthropocentric and therefore fallacious

>>11046149
nope. good as in practical and beautiful it is what its meant.

not good as in moral. lol faggot

and im not a /pol/tard just an atheist scientific fag that cares about reality.

genetically inferior ugly males are a bad subject to define evolution. genetically superior chads and kyles SHOULD define evolution more. This is good. Thankfully this been the case for a long time.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html?

>>11046513
nordics master race. they have a lot of good traits overall. very well rounded + high stats
instead of muhdik its muhheight which is objectively universally attractive and practical.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-height-of-men

>>11046510
what is a kyle?

>>11046395
We already are.

>>11046683
a pretty boy like Harry Styles and those wiggas. Not Chad masculinity strong square jaw and shit but still makes it cuz face carries another type of beauty that is also kind of popular.

>>11046513
wtf

>>11046693
they breed out the retards. what is there to be confused about?

>>11046137

No Kyle, you're not going to kill all the Africans and Chinese people, they can kill you just as easily

>>11046727
nobody is talking about that. but objectively speaking africans got bad genes for civilized society. bad faces, flat features, tribal brains, weak immunity system, not genetically taller than the danes or the dutch or any nordic for that matter.

>>11046727
>you're not going to kill all the Africans and Chinese people, they can kill you just as easily
Go back to lereddit please

>>11046270
5 out of 6 of those traits are developed during the lifetime of individuals and are not inscribed in the genetic code.
Also, the programme of selecting/breeding/raising should be selective in order to avoid permanent war and total destruction, something similar to Brave New World.
If we'd started doing this even two hundred years ago, we'd be already extint.

>>11046764
All of those traits are inherently genetic

>>11046764
he is right. aggressiveness is the least genetical one.
and darwinism is always the base of all life forms no matter how much humanity tries to hide it with politics and other shit. to this day one can see the darwinism in the human animal.

>>11046769
i don't have the time to search for papers in english, but in this case the following affirmation will suffice:
No, they're not!

>>11046769
you forgot aesthetics btw. aesthetics isnt philosophical subjective shit, in fact i think its the most objective one.

a symmetrical face is objectively beautiful. all women flock to beautiful faces. hell its the only reason i get hit on. Aggressiveness in modern standards is more like assertiveness, they dont want a shy beta orbiter than cant handle rejection either confidence is attractive.

>>11046137
It's not in itself science, but criticizing it for that is dumb. It's a policy, and therefore like any policy inherently has a subjective value judgements in it. It can still be based on science.

>>11046780
>policy
if i live according to eugenics cuz im good looking and i wanna have tall children am i bein political? lol

>>11046772
Well, in a world where we're all born in equal enviromental circumstances (which is impossible, even in the most equal worlds multiplicity will keep being a thing) it would be possible to talk about genetic differences for such traits. In the societies we've known such conditions have not existed so it's a stupid assumption that those traits (subject to a vast amount of variables) are genetical. Just as an example see the raise in "intelligence", longevity and physical and neurological fitness during the growth of middle classes in western countries on the last decades. Just in one generation we see a huge change in traits that by some are thought to be "genetical".
Even studies with twins are a failure when trying to measure the genetical nature of IQ.
So, sure, genetics has it's part of influence, but with the exception of extreme cases, enviroment is the most important determinant.

>>11046774
What reasoning on earth could make you think any of those traits are anything but genetic when difference can be plainly observed in different species and vary by individual racial groupings and individual families?
>>11046772
Aggressiveness is a genetic trait and predisposition to it can be traced to genes

>>11046788
dont bullshit yourself. it can be talked about it now, its just that honestly this new wave of political correctness and americanism has this science cucked.
I could do it, i just have to not give a single fuck about the opinion of twitter.

That being said I do not think white dudes are the best at everything, i dont care about proving supremacy i care about the truth which exists and points towards the fact that we are different.

>>11046788
The changes seen in the recent modern age are likely from additional resources allowing for genetic traits to fully exhibit themselves similar cases happen in species even drastic ones for example the gender changes in clownfish are a genetic trait that exhibits itself depending on environmental factors

>>11046788
The genetic nature of IQ is fairly well documented with fairly recent studies showing a heritability of 80% to 86%

>>11046791
>Aggressiveness is a genetic trait and predisposition to it can be traced to genes
sure some is but that one is the most cultural one, if they teach you to chimp out you are more likely to chimp out.

also aggressiveness is no longer that attractive, assertiveness is. even tho a person with anger issues performs better than a depressed person. neither is attractive.

>>11046792
Are you retarded or are you retarded enough to ignore whole fields of scientific knowledge?
What does anything of what i said have to do with political correctness?
Go to /pol/ or to whichever reddit board you can get pats on the back for being an oppressed white male.
Any competent biologist knows that the social world is too complex to be able to reduce any of such traits to "genetics".

>>11046799
Culture allows the trait to fully exhibit itself but the trait is genetic as can be seen with difference in aggression between species

>>11046793
Oh, this is too retarded even for a board like this.

>>11046137
No, it was delegitimized due to its association with Nazi Germany, accurate or not.

>>11046225
There should always be at least one up so leftoids and rightards can actually look at the science behind it.

>>11046807
That's a really strong and well formatted argument

>>11046800
again i dont have anything to do with /pol/ its some of your dumb liberal bias or some shit. I hate /pol/ i think they are a stupid religious echochamber.

Eugenics are a legit scientifical subject humans have different traits which are superior to others and this can be inherited. If you don't believe in that you are a numbskull.

Im an attractive white guy, im not even into white women and im looking to reproduce with eugenics in mind 100%. I want my children to be better than me, taller for example.

>>11046137
It depends on how you view it.
Does selective breeding give us supreme humans?
Nope.
That's retarded.

Does it make sense to kill off retards/not allow them to breed? Yes.
Does that mean that if we only made Japanese people that in 1000 years we'll have super mega smart people? No, that's not how breeding works.

Happy to help!

>>11046832
Selectively breeding does give us the "supreme" variant depending on the baseline we decide
to define as"supreme" this can be seen in every breeding project we've ever done

>>11046798
C'mon man, even the biggest advocates of a Hereditarian world view acknowledge that the data puts it at between 40% and 80%

>>11046832
selective breeding does give us superior humans

>>11046836
https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105
https://www.academia.edu/13177841/Genetic_and_Environmental_Influences_of_General_Cognitive_Ability_Is_g_a_valid_latent_construct
These put the % between 80% and 84%

>>11046838
86%*

>>11046835
>>11046837
Supreme as in "best possible" and not superior.
Yes, not letting a bunch of inbred fucks from dickhole land is going to improve the species but it does not mean that forcing people with the highest IQ results in everyone being a Da Vinci in 1000 years is my point

>>11046844
best possible = superior
remember than those who reproduce define evolution.
That best possible is also evolving, better to evolve alongside a majority of best possibles than with a bunch of uggos.
The attractive been practicing Eugenics for a long long time now.

>>11046844
High heredity of IQ and concentration of genes associated with high intelligence would have a pronounced affect on the individual that inherits these genes with a higher circulation of these genes it would at the very least put all individuals at a much greater baseline of intelligence as can be seen in the difference for example between a man from the congo and an ashkenazi

>superior
>better
Nice scientific concepts guys

>>11046854
You could replace them with "most well adapted" the wording is different but the core concept is the same

>>11046851
reproducing with a smart person is a good idea but aesthetics matter more imo just slightly more. that being said if someone who is beautiful himself doesnt take both into account when choosing a partner he is stupid.

He can potentially make the life of his children x1,000 times better if he chooses well. Its one of the most important decisions in the life of a beautiful man imo.

>>11046137
It's not science, it's metaphysical. Science does not have a concept of betterment. However you could argue that gene editing is technology and thus somewhat kinda scientific.

>>11046856
Intelligence is correlated with physical appearance and body and facial symmetry so there isn't too much problem in obtaining both although personally I'm inclined to prefer a longer lifespan and healthspan as highly preferable traits

>>11046855
>You could replace them with "most well adapted
And you have the exact same problems as using better or superior. Mr Hume is not going away that easily

>>11046865
Hume was a faggot and so are you.

>>11046865
Hume can suck my cock

>>11046861
>Intelligence is correlated with physical appearance and body and facial symmetry

sometimes yea. at least you can be absolutely sure the person has no retardation, with uggos tho it varies down syndrome ppl are all potatos, some uggos might be confused with them.

>>11046871
>sometimes yea.
Nigger do you know what a correlation is.

>>11046865
Who cares about Hume. Didn't he die a virgin if I remember correctly? And look at that face... its the genetically inferior asking for help from the superior. Nobody owes him anything.

>>11046874
eh its correlated in the sense that the more ugly potato the face looks the closest that human being might be to retardation. i can tell that very quickly.

>>11046838
Studies with twins. The methodology on this kind of studies is too questionable to be regarded as scientifically rigurous. There's the underlying assumption that both monozygotic and dizigotyc twins are affected in the same way by social and environmental variables, which is untrue. I hope there's no need to explain why i believe this, this is a science board after all.
Also i love how the sources on both studies almost reduce "social class" variable to salary. The sad thing is that this is pretty common along these kind of studies. They formulate an hypothesis and align their obsertvations in order to confirm it. This is not science.

>>11046810
You're trying to make an argument with some obscure "genetic potential" that only manifests when favorable conditions take place. So everytime a new content or form appears "it was already there, latent, waiting to be awakened".
If you believe something like this deserves an actual serious response you're delusional.

>>11046888
In a capitalist society the amount you're paid is tied to ones ability to a degree which makes it a viable measuring stick to study intelligence which so far have correlated well with each other
>>11046891
It's not an obscure concept at all as a biological creature cannot acquire a trait that isn't tied to it's genetics it's outright lysenkoism to imply otherwise

>>11046812
If intelligence is hereditary i suggest you refrain from reproducing.

>>11046888
Twin studies are one of the very few models for understanding the heredity of traits in humans without some unethical testing

>>11046896
Sure, but there's good science and bad science and unfortunately twin studies fall in the second category. We'll have to invent better methods or at least discard those that are not rigurous.

>>11046898
The simple solution is to discard Dizygotic twins

>>11046894
>In a capitalist society the amount you're paid is tied to ones ability

>>11046904
>to a degree

>>11046894
but its also a Darwinist society remember what i told you about Darwinism being the base of it all for any animal.

in fact because its a capitalist society eugenics isnt researched enough, discoveries in that area wouldnt sell and would make a lot of people mad especially Americans.

I think its absolutely possible to find less biased ways to research genetic differences.

not because its hard to research in modernity it should be discarded. Eugenics and individual racial genetics matter. and being absolutely frank im sure if people came up with objective data a lot of political oriented pussies would try to censor it. This is the problem with modern science, this subject matters every aspect of humanity must be explored we do it with the other animals.

>>11046905
>to a degree

>>11046149
Making value judgements about inequality, health, morality etc. is wrong as well then. We should just vegetate and not do anything about anything ever, because it's just like, your opinion, maaaaan.
Or we could decide that having children who don't get cancer, heart disease or obesity, whilst also being tall, good looking and intelligent, would make the world a better place.

>>11046910
>we could decide that having children who don't get cancer, heart disease or obesity, whilst also being tall, good looking and intelligent, would make the world a better place.

I wish anon I wish. I want to push humanity to reproduce/evolve better. the world needs the genetically superior.

>>11046894
>In a capitalist society the amount you're paid is tied to ones ability to a degree which makes it a viable measuring stick to study intelligence which so far have correlated well with each other
Sure, they're correlated, but there's different variables that configure the concept of social class and salary is one of those. There's two dominant operationalizations of social class, the first one the neomarxist and the second one the neoweberian and each of those is configured by 8-12 categories and salary is only one of those. A simple example would be university proffesors and researchers, at least in europe, the salaries are actually in the low end but the social position and the kind ocupation are in the high end.
>It's not an obscure concept at all as a biological creature cannot acquire a trait that isn't tied to it's genetics it's outright lysenkoism to imply otherwise
You're confusing a potential with the actual content. Sure, biology servers as a kind of spectrum of what's possible. The field of possibilities of morphology makes pretty much impossible that a human will be born with 6 legs, but that doesn't determine how those legs will be. It's similar but much more complex in the case of behavioral traits.

>>11046922
It outright does determine how those legs will be there are observed differences in musculature even within races you can of course apply physical activity and training and use that as an argument of environmental affects but even that works under our genetics as can be observed among athletes

>>11046137

>>11046935
>physical activity and training
>works under our genetics
What alters more the shape of legs, distinct genetics or training/injuries/etc. Doesn't "work under genetics", it "works" along with genetics. How the fuck can the car that hit my legs on the street be coded in genetics? New forms and configurations (not coded in any predetermined genetical fate) emerge when new interactions take place.
Is this that fucking difficult to understand?
What you're saying is that everything we do, say or think has always been in our genetics. There's nothing external to genetics. Everything is genetics. Now go and prove your statement or give me any actual scientific sources that prove it. Even the most incompetent psychologists or biologists see how stupid such a statement is.

>>11046961
Distinct genetics alter the leg more by it's very nature as it's what makes the leg in the first place i'm not arguing that external injuries are coded genetically but the behaviors and what the leg can and cannot do are defined by it's genetic there is only so much physical training each individual can do and this varies depending on the individual as their genes dictate the extent

>>11046961
what you eat is external and can transform the gene.
meat eating is good to define a jaw and the fangs which are attractive.

>>11046963
Well, but we're assuming we already have bodies with legs and brains, which is the case. Origin does not dictate the function of something. You could say that hands are made to hold things, but that would be incorrect as they're not made for anything specifically, they get their function in the diverse interactions with the world, those functions are not coded in any way as they're everchanging, even within a same genetic code.
Anyway a brain is not a hand or a leg and it's informed by elements of much more complex kinds as are sign systems amongst others. If you can't see how contingent and external are those by yourself and how we're thought rather than we think there's no point on going on with this discussion.
Give me any reasonable proof that every content or form is "already there", "latent" and i'll willfully believe it.

>>11046971
Twilight vampire erotic fantasy.
Girls, do you like claws?

>>11046978
Genetics is more than a point of origin it is the absolute essence of a creature and encodes more than just it's origin but it's entire life and i'm not arguing metaphysical things being genetic but the potential and ability to perform these things are genetic in the most absolute sense as it's only through the genes that code and create everything that makes us human and it is that same code that further dictates what we can do

>>11046504
Encouraging smarter people to have more kids is literally the same as killing 600 billion Jews!

>>11046990
>the potential and ability to perform these things are genetic
Sure, i agree, you need some kind of potential to perform anything in order to perform it. But that doesn't determine how it will be performed, that's what's contingent and can't in anyway be coded. And anyway, genetic code isn't immutable and changes during the lifetime of creatures. So all your argument goes to the trash.

Culture is also genetic.

>>11047066
You mean that if you bring a >ulu child and raise him in a different culture he'll end up wearing clothes made from zebra fur and screaming "wakanda"?

eugenics can be a science if you define it as a 'body of knowledge' because it is.
however, it's totally inapplicable since it requires a near perfect fairness in nurturing for any set
which is forever blocked by the rampant lust of the impoverished

so in terms of a 'legitimate science' being applicable knowledge then fuck no it's not.

>>11047122
>science if you define it as a 'body of knowledge' because it is
Is phrenology a science? Is any religious cult a science? they're both bodies of knowledge but they're not sciences. Science is by definition a verificable set of observations that rigorously contrasts it's own hypotheses with reality. Not any body of knowledge is science.
>it's totally inapplicable since it requires a near perfect fairness in nurturing for any set
which is forever blocked by the rampant lust of the impoverished
What do you mean by this?

>>11047144
>science is ...
under your definition i would say eugenics is not a science

>What do you mean by this?
to create a reliable set of people to infer eugenic decisions from there needs to be a certain level of fairness in relation to the development of traits.
we can say that this level of fairness can be achieved by giving people an upbringing to at least a certain socioeconomic level; access to education, nutrition, etc.

now, we can only use eugenics practically if we can avoid the next situation, which is where for the next generation the people who are in unfair conditions, who statistically perform a greater volume of sex. don't outsize the group of eugenically produced children because then the choice to perform eugenics would actually decrease the proportion of people with 'desirable' traits in the next generation.

realistically this is infeasible because it's a problem of income inequality on a global scale, and even from any microcosm there has never been an income equality distribution that would suffice for eugenics ever. and then you have to bring that to a global scale. it's totally impractical.

>>11047118
When put into a society of people like him, yes. When put into a society of people unlike him, he'll likely become a criminal, as blacks often do.

>>11047009
>The recipe for a cake doesn't matter because it will still turn out differently if you cook it in different ways

>>11047200
It's not even the recipe as the recipe is the arrangement and orders in which the ingredients are combined, it's the raw ingredients. Those raw ingredients don't have any code in which they'll be combined in their many interactions with different cooks and cooking instruments. Anyway, who said that the raw ingredients don't matter? i wasn't even arguing that.
To say that what happens to living beings is performed by living beings therefore what has happened must be biologically possible just says that what has happened must have been possible. Nothing more. That's a fucking truism and that's what you or the other anon was arguing. Now fuck off with your retarded memes.

>>11047180
Okay, i agree with some of the underlying fundaments of what you're saying even if i find eugenics problematic in itself.
You're assuming that those who actually have the "desirable traits" (and we're talking exclusively about biology here) are those who have the better social position and status. The uneducated and poor have the "undesirable traits". To even begin thinking about grasping the surface of actual biological traits we'd need a perfectly equal and homogeneous society. This would mean that every children of that ideal society would have to be raised with equal care and without any distinction (even those of gender should be neutralised). Then maybe we'd be able to see the actual influence of biology in a individual and general scale and to discriminate between traits.

>>11047468
>even if i find eugenics problematic in itself.
>problematic
lol what a cuck
problematic for the uggos nu males tbqhfam

>>11047475
If you ever used that spongy thing inside your skull you'd understand why it's inherently problematic.
Btw, i'm a 1'87 8/10 that has seen more real flesh vulvas than you'll ever see.

>>11046137
It's an application of legitimate science research and knowledge.

>>11047424
In the case of biology, raw ingredients are even more important because better genes create a better starting point. Starting smarter makes you more likely to make smart decisions that make you smarter. Having stupider genes makes you more likely to make stupid decisions that keep you stupid. Smart people are more likely to create environments that foster intelligence. Stupid people are more likely to create environments that don't help. Smarter genes help improve every factor of intelligence, not just the purely genetic ones.

>>11046895
>If intelligence is hereditary
>if your nerves' functionality is determined by the expression/inexpression of genes, coded within their genome
>if the functionality of one's nerves contributes to one's intelligence

It is.
Read a fucking textbook that's above highschool level and you'll realize how fucking stupid you sound, you uneducated piece of shit

>>11046913
>I want to push humanity to reproduce/evolve better

You won't, but don't worry, China will. They already proved the concept with human genome editing

>>11047468
>i find eugenics problematic in itself.

not the anon you were talking to, but your problem, of genome edited humans only being the %1 or what-have-you, can resolved through Gene DRIVE techniques (making the edited gene force dominant inheritance).

The bigger problem would be everyone being genealogically equivalent. Ignoring genetic disease propagation factors, could you imagine a janitor of a lab having the same IQ of the Doctors there (such would induce societal dissonance)

>>11046149
>etymological dogmatism
Definitely a leftist

>>11046137
Yes, as in GATTACA, but not as in dog show breeders.

>>11047782
Lol

>>11047990
>Yes the fictional dysgenics propaganda is real, but the real-life example of the mechanism actually working isn't
kys

>>11047468
You don't need a perfectly equal and homogeneous society even observation of wild creatures and their offspring yields massive quantities of information about their traits and the heredity of these traits

>>11048013
Retard straw man. You failed to understand how I was pointing out what would be Eugenics versus a common misunderstanding of what Eugenics is.
Want an irl example? True professional dog breeders that select for health and ability, such as those the military hires for their German Sheppard's.
Now apply that to humanity using preferential gene selection and you get the "fictional propaganda" you're so dismissive of. Kek, China has already made human trials of the sort public knowledge. Not so fictional anymore.

>>11046137
>is it a science?
That would imply its a field of study, but that would just be genetic biology.
>is it scientifically valid?
Err...that's up to a great amount of debate...
Of course we are evolving through natural selection, but we have become conscious beings and we can assume that we don't follow the classical rules of evolution; but then again, humans evolve so slowly we have no idea really.
In any way though, too much focus on eugenic is pointless because of recessive genes.

>>11048229
>too much focus on eugenic is pointless because of recessive genes.
Are you retarded?

>>11046137
Eugenics, like medicine, engineering, art, sports, and farming is not science but a practical application of it. Humans are animals and can be bred to have characteristics, so yes eugenics is possible. But it runs counter to our christian-turned-liberal egalitarianism so it won’t ever have the funding of medicine, engineering, sports, art, etc. The question should not be if eugenics is a science; instead it is a question of legalizing it in your country. It is also a question that does not belong on the science board; meaning that YOU ARE A FAG OP GO TO /POL/

>>11046137
biology isn't a science you fucking /pol/ tard dumbass

>>11046137
Isn't it just part of biology?

>>11049242
/sci/ is an official nazi loli board

>>11046270
If these traits are actually "better" than they would have/will be selected for naturally. Eugenics is just bizarre, the fact that you choose to control breeding means that you are unhappy with the current natural selection already occurring (although eugenics would also be an evolutionary pressure)

>>11049426
Modern era has produced a different environment that has very lax selective pressures and the only real form of selection going on would be the mass proliferation of offspring which is perfectly normal and healthy for a species however this is only when there is a strong selective pressure being applied which simply no longer happens and in the current world it seems to be moving towards a dysgenic future as can be seen with intelligent people having less children and over the generations this will lead to an increased quantity of these traits within the genepool and with the lack of selective pressures those that would in other ages be deemed unfit are able to live and reproduce which is likely to further cause dysgenics

>>11049279
dope

no but for reals the nazis had a lot of cool science. too bad the jews hate it. eugenics dont have to be only racial they can be human.

The tall should reproduce with the tall, the naturally fit only with the fit, the beautiful with the beautiful. Otherwise your children risk losing those dope genes. that are without a doubt an advantage mostly for attraction.

>>11049279

>>11049279
This

>>11049478
Aren't you the people constantly complaining about all the women going to Chad's?

>>11049426
>Modern era has produced a different environment that has very lax selective pressures and the only real form of selection going on would be the mass proliferation of offspring which is perfectly normal and healthy for a species however this is only when there is a strong selective pressure being applied which simply no longer happens
Is this 'modern life selects poorly' myth just an offshoot of the endless 'society is crumbling and only we can save it' mentality?

I've literally never seen any evidence that modern life produces evolutionary pressures wildly different from a few hundred years ago, or that today's pressures are 'bad'. Just endless anons conjecturing

>>11049527
Even (((wikipedia))) acknowledges that fertility and intelligence are inversely correlated.

>>11049520
That's a good thing as physical attractiveness is correlated with numerous traits

>>11046149
Trying to use a word's etymology in favour of your argument can get you to some pretty retarded places, so I shall simply disregard your opinion under the assumption that you'd never actually apply the same standard to other words (and even if you would then you'd just be a nuisance to the rest of us)

>>11049279
>>11049511
>nazis
Based
>anime
Cringe. Kill yourself.

Why don't you join the fucking server already. What are you a faggot?
An incel? Scared.

Take the fucking pink pill, you know you want it. Oh, you can't do it on your own?
Too scared to put on a skirt and go outside?
We'll guide you.

MxBkuxW
MxBkuxW
MxBkuxW

You're welcome to join us, we're all nice and cuddly ~
We'll treat you the way you wanna be treated, give you help and emotional support.
No more cutting or sadness <3

ALL HAIL sadcode THE 16 YO FINAL BOSS OF THE INTERNET

Free steam code
SRCE-KRXS-BCSN-DQ11

>>11046500
You can make burgers in a rigorously scientific manner but that doesn't make grilling a science.

>>11049648
I know. People say the Chad crisis is growing, yet also complain about dysgenics. It makes no goddam sense.

>>11046791
It's the fucking nature vs. nurture argument.
Enjoy proving one side over the other extensively, it's not that blarignly obvious like /pol/ or Reddit attempts to claim you massive faggots.

>>11050000
Oh shit, I just got mothafucking quads on a slow board. This proves my point further.

>>11049710
No, that would make it engineering. Large fast food corps actually do it to optimize profits. More broadly, the research needed to make those burgers in a rigorously scientific way comes from several scientific disciplines, including food science. Eugenics may be unethical, but it's still science (when approached in a scientific manner). Science itself has nothing to do with ethics.

>>11049745
Because no one wants to be at the bottom of the hierarchy

>>11046395
We already do. We have created the capitalist system for them to thrive in, giving them management positions and rewarding them with enhanced wealth and status.

>>11046736
Why are you talking about Eugenics when you can't even understand Evolution? Evolution is not a footrace. People don't evolve to compete with random tribes in Africa. Organisms evolve to suit their current environment or the environment they or their ancestors lived in the longest. Height is not even objectively beneficial; the bigger the mass the more energy is required to function.

>>11046736
Also whites are the ones with shitty immune systems and who have all the weird genetic diseases.