/sci/ - Science & Math

I fucking love Dawkins

>>11389409
As an atheist, he is fucking embarassing for our community. He always promotes things that indirectly hint at racial superiority, this fucker always says athesit hold christians and muslims to double standards EVEN IF MUSLIMS ARE DISCRIMINATED IN CHRISTIAN MAJORITY COUNTRIES. Now he has the audacity to defend eugenics? As in what WASProtestant Christian scumbags used to discriminate against poc, non-christians, and other underrepresented groups at the time?

Dude fuck off

>>11389409
no idea if that is a real tweet, but the premise is correct. eugenics is moral if the person having sex applies it. what else do you call it when someone want's children someday but not currently with the person they're fucking? How else would you reconcile individuals eliminating down syndrome?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

Hell even the anti abortion people prove their understanding of eugenics by killing themselves off.

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/why-do-christian-women-continue-to-have-abortions.html

>>11389420
you are doing a fine job of embarrassing yourself. he's clearly not defending eugenics here.

and i suppose there's absolutely no discrimination of christians in muslim majority countries?

the irony that you are explictly holding christians and muslims to double standards. lmao

>>11389409
I regret looking at the replies on twitter.

>>11389435
First of all he literally says eugenics would work

Secondly there is no such thing as a christian country christian majorities live under secular governments and can therefore NOT discriminate against muslims or other religions or lack of religions

Muslims LIVE in MUSLIM COUNTRIES with MUSLIMS LAWS since that is their culture so it makes sense that others need TO FOLLOW THEIR RULES since its THEIR country you dumbfucker

It isnt a double standard also I guess christians crusades killing muslims doesnt count as anything right? Fuck you

>>11389461
>First of all he literally says eugenics would work
and why wouldn't it?

>>11389420
So if I went to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and tried to practice my faith what would happen to me and my community?

>>11389420
>>11389435
>>11389461
>>11389466
religious people, or people who entertain it inserting themselves into a thread about the guy who wrote "the god delusion" is fucking gold.

>>11389461
>Muslims LIVE in MUSLIM COUNTRIES with MUSLIMS LAWS since that is their culture so it makes sense that others need TO FOLLOW THEIR RULES since its THEIR country you dumbfucker
You aren't helping your case. why do muslims keep coming to my country and rape our women?

>>11389472
is it an intentional policy of dysgenics? to weaken us?

>>11389420
>as an atheist
stopped reading there. fucking cringe

>>11389420
Muslims are given a free pass by the media while christians are criticized in the West. Even lefties who claim to be opposed to homophobia and sexism will defend Muslims.

>>11389461
>crusades

A defensive reaction to centuries of Islamic attacks on Christendom and a way for the pope to get a bunch of violent men out of Europe.

>>11389420
nice bait man

>>11389420
>t. retard

>>11389420
>As an atheist, he is fucking embarassing for our community. He always promotes things that indirectly hint at racial superiority, this fucker always says athesit hold christians and muslims to double standards EVEN IF MUSLIMS ARE DISCRIMINATED IN CHRISTIAN MAJORITY COUNTRIES. Now he has the audacity to defend eugenics? As in what WASProtestant Christian scumbags used to discriminate against poc, non-christians, and other underrepresented groups at the time?

Morality is a weapon, designed to destroy the White race.

He's 100% right what

>>11389409
Humans are already self domesticated. Eugenics will only lead to extinction of human species when the civilized society inevitably collapses.

>>11389530
they're using our own weapons against us! xD

>>11389461

I suppose every Muslim living in the West follows our secular laws about bigamy then? xD I'd think you were trolling me if you weren't so angry lmao.

> also I guess christians crusades killing muslims doesnt count as anything right?

Well, nothing more than a good start.

>>11389461
>Secondly there is no such thing as a christian country christian majorities live under secular governments

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Holy_See

>>11389461
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vatican_City

>>11389409
he's a faggot that can't get over being raped by a priest when he was a delicious little boi

>>11389409
based

>>11389420
>as an athiest
>REEEEEEEEEEE CHRISTIANITY
>NOOOOOO DON'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE HECKIN MUSLIMS

>>11389573
Yes making humans smarter, stronger and healthier will make us go extinct.

>>11389673
Name one(1) species made healthier by selective breeding

>>11389682
We don't generally select our meat for 'healthiness'.

Eugenic experiments on fruit flies have shown that lifespan can be extended significantly above the mean through selective breeding.

>>11389420
Nice b8. Makes me think RD is even more based than I thought.

>>11389682
I am assuming a sensible eugenics project that focuses on strong immune systems, intelligence, general health etc. We're not breeding the fluffiest lap dog or the fastest growing crop.

>>11389409
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pno6Ir_nDAQ

>>11389736
This. Imagine a world filled with Aryans. Fuck, every Indian would have ten of them

Eugenics is our only chance to stop the white race from dying out. Else white women and black/brown men will bring us to an end

>>11389739
lol what in god's name is this faggotry

>>11389409

He's not wrong but he also forgets to mention how pants on retarded we go with commercial eugenics in terms of ignoring consequences in the products we consume. American Turkeys, Merino Sheep and grocery Bananas would definitely like a word with Dawkins.

>>11389420
>He always promotes things that indirectly hint at racial superiority,

I agree, the evidence that certain races are better than others supports directly stating it. Richard Dawkins is an SJW.

>>11389409
So facts dont care about your feelings?

>>11389420
what a faggot

>>11389409
Eugenics would work if it was controlled by people who knew about the danger of backing humans into a corner of recessives, and if political didn't get involved. Politicians would automatically use it to breed out their political enemies, naturally the upper class would be excluded from the eugenics program for "reasons". The mention of cattle and pets by Dawkins comes with good reason. You use eugenics on cattle and pets. Invariably a eugenics program would be used by evil people to create a race of compliant slaves and annihilate self determination, it is the logical end goal of oligarchs. It's already happening without eugenics in Western countries. The rampant factionalism, stratification of the classes, twilight is coming. Eugenics would accelerate it.

>>11389682
border collies

>>11389420
>things that indirectly hint at racial superiority
your paranoia duly noted.

>>11389682
Usually when selectively breeding animals, people don't care about their health, so they use the cheapest method (i.e. incest), which leads to a lot of problems. There's no reason to believe selective breeding in humans would lead to any diseases or genetic defects if we simply avoid incest.

>>11389420
>our community
wtf i am atheist and i was not aware we have a community retard

>>11389907
His post is an obvious troll

>>11389409
He's correct when he says that eugenics would work in practice. But wrong in his implication that we'd be better off discarding ideological concerns.

>>11389736
>assuming a sensible eugenics project that focuses on strong immune systems, intelligence, general health
Strong immune reactions and a more active immune system doesn't translate to better health. General health is too vague to select for. Intelligence isn't really readily measurable and mostly comes down to success and more specific affinities.
Still you could set more or less arbitrary standards and actively select from those as you fine tune them. But that's a long shot from an immediately implementable course to betterment.

I despise the people who are against removing shit like autism and other defects because muh right to be.

>>11389929
> immediately implementable

simple, immediately screen out people with alleles for genetic illnesses. Intelligence is highly heritable, put all donors through an IQ test with a 105 minimum.We can detect genetic markers for a stronger immune system so favor such donors. Not a huge improvement but a good start.

>>11389409
How based can one person be?
I'd love his ability to make people mad by saying something completely uncontroversial.

>>11389970
>The Oh my IQ-meme
You can make a study out of that just fine. I'm not sure whether humans make for the best model organism in that study but that's besides the point. It doesn't look like good policy though, is the distinction that I'm making.

>>11389409
He's wrong about facts ignoring ideology.
Facts may not be ideological in a vacuum, but in practise facts are almost always brought up in connection to support some normative statement (or implied normative statement). Making a strictly true statement isn't the same as making a statement which is worth making. His point about eugenics could be strictly true, but what that statement actually does is launder and promote a dangerous ideology. There is an ideological component involved in deciding what facts are deemed important and which facts are deemed relevant. For instance, black crime rates are often brought up to promote white supremacist ideology, but the facts relating to the history of white supremacy and racism aren't deemed relevant to the discussion by white supremacists, but are deemed relevant by liberals. When facts are brought up in a discussion, he or she who brings them up does so with an intention. In this case, Dawkins brings up an alleged fact to promote eugenics because of his ideology.
In fact, Dawkin's statement is deeply ideological. The statement that eugenics would "work" for humans is ideologically laden because the meaning of "work" is not clearly established. It is true that eugenics practised on humans could be used to modify some phenotypic aspects of the human species as it does for domestically bred animals, but he never clearly established that that is what he means by "work". When people say something "would work", they usually mean it achieves the desired outcome. It's not at all clear that modifying the human phenotype is desirable, unless you happen to believe that certain people have bad phenotypic traits and some people have good phenotypic traits. Ideology that deems certain phenotypic traits good and bad tend to be deeply racist.

>>11389682
Well technically domesticated animals live much longer and better because their compatibility with humans allow them to benefit from all its technological comfort.

>>11389420
:^)

>>11389420
this desu
the guy is a piers morgan-tier cunt

>>11389682
sheep. we even took one of their worst predators and turned it into a sophisticated bodyguard animal.

>>11389991
Not trying to take out his merit, but nowadays that's pretty easy. Even a simply phrase such as "It's ok to be white" can trigger a huge shitstorm.

>>11389420
If this is bait, it was masterfully crafted. Congratulations.

>>11390019
Imagine putting that much effort into a bait post

>>11390082
It's entirely uncontroversial. How can that be bait?

>>11389420
As an atheist I think you're the embarrassing one here you fucking faggot.

Find a rope to hang yourself with.

>>11390046
Theres nothing wrong with being an atheist and being biased towards Christianity for it's role in Western history and it's arguably better aesthetics.

>>11390019
>In this case, Dawkins brings up an alleged fact to promote eugenics because of his ideology.
He doesn't promote eugenics and you have no evidence regarding his motives.
>he never clearly established that that is what he means by "work".
Why would he need to define that word and not all the others ?
>When people say something "would work", they usually mean it achieves the desired outcome.
And that's what he means and that's why we understand what he means. That eugenics applied on humans would achieve the outcome of modifying the offspring's phenotype to show certain desired characteristics.

>>11389682
Being "healthy" wasn't the main trait chosen in selective breeding idiot;

>>11390088
>it's better to hide and deny the truth, if I don't like it
>uncontroversial

>>11389409
richard dawkins is a closet christian and a fascist

>>11390053
yes because everyone knows what you mean by saying it's okay to be white.
You're not even hiding what you are insinuating

>>11390113
Why?

>>11390123
That it's OK to be white?

>>11390124
Define healthy. Livestock breeding is usually based on size for getting more meat out of an animal. Besides most animals selectively bred by humans can live perfectly healthy lives as long as they aren't kept in factory farming conditions so your claim that they aren't healthy is retarded.

>>11390125
Don't worry because society knows what you're hinting at.

>>11390134
richard dawkins wants to breed humans for meat.
He wants to eat people. What an idiot

>>11390108
>He doesn't promote eugenics
His tweet publicly argues in defence of eugenics and claims that would "work" if practised. That constitutes a promotion of eugenics.
>Why would he need to define that word and not all the others ?
Nothing else in the tweet is ambiguous. When we say something works we mean it produces a desired outcome. The ambiguity lies in what outcomes are deemed desirable.
>That eugenics applied on humans would achieve the outcome of modifying the offspring's phenotype to show certain desired characteristics.
If all he said was eugenics applied on humans would "achieve the outcome of modifying the offspring's phenotype", I would agree with him. But which characteristics are desired? Everyone that has applied eugenics, whether to animals or humans have applied highly subjective and usually racist ideas of what desirable characteristics are. Dog breeders cull healthy puppies because they don't conform to their rigid and often bizarre conception of desirable characteristics, usually to the detriment of the health of the dog. Human eugenicists have almost always had ideas of what is desirable which are based in racism, not facts.

>>11389929
>Intelligence isn't really readily measurable

>>11390140
I have no idea how to respond to this retarded post.

>>11390134
M8 you should inform yourself about the various problems different dog breeds suffer from due to retarded breeders choices.
>Livestock breeding is usually based on size for getting more meat out of an animal. Besides most animals selectively bred by humans can live perfectly healthy lives as long as they aren't kept in factory farming conditions so your claim that they aren't healthy is retarded.
>livestock which was selectively bred can live perfectly healthy lives except when used as we originally intended
doubt.jpg
https://worldradio.ch/news/2018/08/14/swiss-cattle-too-heavy-too-big-and-too-greedy-says-breeders-association/

>>11390137
Not him but explain what it's hinting at or are you a mind reader that just "knows".

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1229066756012085253?s=21

>>11390159
Dogs are not livestock and it's entirely possible to fuck up eugenics by selectively breeding poorly which many dog breeders do. Some dog breeds are perfectly "healthy". Are you trying to claim that selective breeding can only result in negative traits?

>>11390123
Its ok to be black.

Guess im a fcking bigot now arnt I.

>>11390145
>>11390108
Also, to add to this we must consider the effects on the social cohesion that human eugenics would have. Looking at the societies that have practised eugenics in Nazi Germany, the USA, Australia and others where forced sterilisation and genocide was practised to enforce eugenics, I don't think the effect of practising eugenics on society are desirable. You might disagree with that, but that would presumably be down to an ideological difference between us.

>>11390167
>Dogs are not livestock
I never said they were, you were the one bringing up livestock when we were just talking about selective breeding.
>it's entirely possible to fuck up eugenics by selectively breeding poorly which many dog breeders do.
Yes, by breeding dogs together which share features you want to keep - ignoring that they might share these features because they are already related, causing inbreeding.
>Some dog breeds are perfectly "healthy".
Yeah, I'd guess those less inbred (i.e. those less tampered with by breeders)
>Are you trying to claim that selective breeding can only result in negative traits?
In theory if the breeders took care to avoid inbreeding and all other negative effects not. In practise, see pic related and read the article here >>11390159
If it was easy "pick and choose the traits you want to keep" then we would not have those problems

>>11390207
Bud, you're the one who brought up dogs when I was talking about livestock. None of that explains why selective breeding or eugenics doesn't work or why it wouldn't work on humans.

What are you even arguing?

>>11389409
https://youtu.be/W6QAqU2KpaY?t=3m30s

>>11390118
If that's what you took from what I said then you're stupid and you didn't understand it.

>>11390237
Yeah, I already noticed you tried to shift goalposts from "selective breeding" to "selective breeding livestock", I don't care though.
You're also coincidentally ignoring the parts of my posts that are about livestock.

>None of that explains why selective breeding or eugenics doesn't work or why it wouldn't work on humans.
You also can't explain why it would work better for humans than it did for dogs or livestock, where it created many unnecessary problems

>>11390272
>You also can't explain why it would work better for humans than it did for dogs or livestock, where it created many unnecessary problems
Not them but it doesn't need to. Dawkins wasn't saying it was a good idea he was saying that selective breeding is a functional way to modify a species. Whether your selective breeding creates or reinforces negative traits is completely up to your selection criteria.

>>11390272
You tried to shift the goal post by bringing up poorly bred dogs when I responded to the other anon who claimed selective breeding only results in "unhealthy" animals which isn't true (why I brought up livestock.) I'm not claiming it would be a good thing for humans either retard but theres no reason it wouldn't work seeing that it works for animals.

>>11390281
>Dawkins wasn't saying it was a good idea he was saying that selective breeding is a functional way to modify a species.
That's 100% your interpretation because he doesn't expand on what he means by "it works". He could mean "we can modify the species in a systematic way" or it could mean "we can create perfect beings".
>Whether your selective breeding creates or reinforces negative traits is completely up to your selection criteria.
They problem is that in practice the selectively bred positive traits are often accompanied by negative traits no one predicted or wanted.
Every rancher wants his animals to have as much meat as possible, none of them wants them to become a problem for the environment they are held in due their weight or size.

>>11390294
https://worldradio.ch/news/2018/08/14/swiss-cattle-too-heavy-too-big-and-too-greedy-says-breeders-association/

>>11390335
>https://worldradio.ch/news/2018/08/14/swiss-cattle-too-heavy-too-big-and-too-greedy-says-breeders-association/
That doesn't change the fact that it worked. Doesn't mean it was necessarily a good thing you disingenuous or retarded faggot. You don't seem to understand what the argument is.

>>11390340
"It worked" in the sense of "it changed the animals", not in the sense of "it's a straight up improvement". Save your reply, I'm done arguing with retards

>>11390344
Ok great thanks for acknowledging that I was right and you're just having a knee jerk reaction because you have Nazis living rent free in your head.

>>11389409
>It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs, roses
Yes, when you breed them for one specific trait. Who knows what else that carries. You can breed roses for their smell or humans for their intelligence but perhaps on the same genes you've doomed them with a rare genetic disease. Look how degenerated purebred dogs are nowadays. We don't know enough about the human or any genome to apply it. Call me again in 10-20 years.

>>11390358
Many dog breeds are shit because of rampant inbreeding not because selective breeding can only result in negative traits.

>discussion about eugenics
>nobody talking about nazis
>"by the way nazis live rentfree in your head"
What did xe mean by this

>>11390366
Just admit you're scared to acknowledge that eugenics as a process would work on humans just like it has on many animals for good or bad because you're afraid of what neo-nazis or the alt-right would use it for.

>>11390145
>His tweet publicly argues in defence of eugenics
Nope. That's just what you assume. It just says it would work.
>Nothing else in the tweet is ambiguous
Nothing in his tweet is ambiguous. He just says it would work, in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. Your assumptions are the issue.
>The ambiguity lies in what outcomes are deemed desirable.
That's not an ambiguity, that's a political, ideological question, which is not answered or involved in Dawkins' assertion.
If I say my car works, that leaves unanswered the question of where I want to drive, and that's fine because it works regardless.
When Dawkins says eugenics works, that leaves unanswered the question of what characteristics are to be desired, and that's fine because regardless of that answer it does work.
You expect him to answer that, but he doesn't have to. And when he doesn't you answer for him and pretend he wants to promote eugenics. That's just dishonesty and prejudice on your part.
I shouldn't have to post the follow up tweet, and he shouldn't have had to post it. You and your ilk are at fault for making a strawman to burn.

>>11390169
The social effects of eugenics are also a different question. Like the ecological effects of using my car : even if it pollutes it still works.
And you're right that forceful sterilisations generate resentment. But right now we're aborting kids with genetic defects en masse and few people complain. So it depends.

>>11390266
That's what it comes down to. The truth that Dawkins mentioned, according to you, should not have been mentioned.

>>11389409
CHOOSING A PARTNER IS EUGENICS. PLEASE STAND IN LINE AND WAIT FOR YOUR GOVERNMENT APPOINTED REPRODUCTION PARTNER, SELECTED VIA ALGORITHM TO MINIMIZE DISCRIMINATORY BIAS. DO NOT CONSIDER THIS EUGENECIST IN NATURE OR YOU AND YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP SELECTION POOL WITH YOUR CHOICE OF LETHAL INJECTION OR OXYGEN DEPRIVATION.

>>11390159
look up working type breeds that are professionally bred for important traits.

>>11390137
the blind self-assurance of the pathologically paranoid.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with eugenics. You'd have to have an IQ below 100 to disagree with it.

>>11390167
>Dogs are not livestock
they are

>>11390402
>Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnJks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes 'well-born')[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population by excluding certain genetic groups judged to be inferior, and promoting other genetic groups judged to be superior.[4][5]
By choosing my partner I'm not excluding anyone from procreating. Retarded strawman debunked

>>11390421
In China and South Korea maybe.

>>11390358

See >>11390364. Animals don't get genetic diseases because of selective breeding, but because of selective breeding among a too small number of individuals. The breeding doesn't create the disease, it just allows for pre-existing recessive diseased genes to be expressed more often.

Of course sometimes it can create physical issues, when for example you selected dogs with misshapen backs and legs until they can't run.
But that's not a bug, that's a feature.

The most likely way eugenics will come back is with gattaca style embryo selection which doesn't carry those risks.

>>11390433
Your quote doesn't specify exclusion from what.
You are excluding someone from procreating with you, you are excluding her genes from the human group that is your children.

>>11390446
>Your quote doesn't specify exclusion from what.
From the human population, it is self-evident from the context
>You are excluding someone from procreating with you, you are excluding her genes from the human group that is your children.
The human population is not the same as my children unless there is a massive extinction event soon

>>11390366
>nobody talking about nazis
anyone associating from it works to it’s desirable lives at constant defcon 1 lest nazis score a point. cease with this gaslighting attempt, you’ll not convince anyone.

>>11390455
So eugenics isn't eugenics as long as it doesn't affect the whole human population ? One country can't have eugenics ?

>>11390402
funny enough arranged marriages are more successful than the alternative. it's not hard to imagine that there would be many algorithms which would be much better at sorting people into mating pairs than people relying on themselves.

>>11390462
Of course they can. Excluding people you deem undesirable from procreating is also eugenics even if you stay within the borders of a single country. If you have trouble understanding, try reading it again

>>11390475
>Excluding people you deem undesirable from procreating is also eugenics even if you stay within the borders of a single country.
So why isn't it also eugenics within the borders of a single household ?

>>11389478
>Even lefties who claim to be opposed to homophobia and sexism will defend Muslims.
Probably not samefagging the bait, but it hardly makes a difference in this case, since only larping pseudo lefities with ulterior right-wing motives, and their retarded equally philistine dupes, equivocate in this fashion over degrees of difference to the tyranny of stupefying dogma.

>>11390102
The sophistication of religion over historical time always has an analogy to individual growth in perception, in roughly the same way that in recapitulating phylogeny, ontogeny is only as comprehensive as development. In this respect, European Christianity's forms & institutions are late-stage to the point of having the least resemblance to religion generally, as well as to all its more rudimentary antecedents and relations. Likewise, people do not flock to Dubai to take in either Handel oratorios or Shakespeare plays.

>>11389409
Yeah maybe not but he's gonna get #metoo'd regardless.

>>11390455
>A human population = The human population
Ok faggot

>>11390165
>caring what le fat bald arab thinks

>>11390468
>funny enough arranged marriages are more successful than the alternative.
I’m pretty sure that’s correlation mistaken for causation. the entire cultural context making arranged marriage acceptable makes divorce or even allowing the marriage to deteriorate unacceptable.

>>11389460
Why? They're hilarious. There's an adolf hitler account in there saying richard is an asshole.

>>11390475
>Excluding people you deem undesirable from procreating is also eugenics
the number of women who practiced eugenics on me is simply breathtaking.

Based Dawkins dabbing on religicucks and moralfags

Daily reminder that he did absolutely, legitimately, genuinely, unironically, literally and figuratively nothing wrong.

>>11389409
Who gets to decide who's "defective" or not and why should they have the authority to decide?

>>11389682
Let's name animals who have been harmed by selective breeding: Horses and dogs are some obvious ones.

Was this tweet in response to something? Or did he suddenly just decide to blurt this out, out of nowhere?

>>11390344
you should look up commercial kiwi dairy breeders instead of swiss tourist cattle

>>11389420
Your post is further evidence that all atheists are retarded.

>>11390879
There's more domesticated horses and dogs now than wild horses and wolves.

>>11390434
If I'd spent £30,000 on a team of trained working collies they'd be my livestock for working hill flocks.

>>11390861
We wont know for sure until either the data is mined from studies (assuming it can be collected verified and done legally) or we try all variations and find out.

The question is not if or how should it be done but that the very proposal of such of study should not be the cause of such controversy. I don't think people capable of having a healtly discussion on an ethical means for investigating the implied effects of eugenics (scientifically) or at least its not possible on twitter nor on a japanese image board.

>>11390861
What if we let the parents decide, with their parental authority ?

If you really want to increase IQ then smart women need to have more kids.

>>11389409

SOICENSE LOVERS BTFO

>>11389461
>MUH CRUSADES
Read a book you dumb fuck. Muslims had been invading Christian lands for hundreds of years prior to them finally having enough of you goat fuckers.

Have a cry about it, cunt.

>>11390486
If your father castrates you and your midget brothers and only lets your chad brother keep his balls intact then that's eugenics in your household.
If your sister refuses to have sex with you then that's not eugenics in your household because you still have the theoretical chance to procreate outside your household

the hysterical reactions are diverging.
which kind of hysterical are you: the one who argues natural selection is magically different from artificial selection and the latter cannot succeed
or the one who thinks he must fight battles starting with the most important ones, but fortunately he is also endowed with perfect mind-reading abilities and can therefore see what others really think. which is always what a collaborator of the enemy du jour would think, strangely enough.

>>11390861
what the fuck does this have to do with the claim that once it’s decided, it can be achieved? go to /pol/ if you want to discuss political implications, this is /sci/.

>>11390145
>If all he said was eugenics applied on humans would "achieve the outcome of modifying the offspring's phenotype", I would agree with him
that’s all he said, even more concisely. none of us is under obligation to perform such verbal contortionism because you and your ilk are triggered by imagined implications. this is gearing up to become another case of it’s okay to be white.

>>11390992
So eugenics isn't eugenics as long as the undesirables have the theoretical chance to procreate in another place ?

>Penniless mennonites move to tropical Forrest In 1921 in the middle of Paraguay
>End up dominating the countries farming sector.
>Literally become the sole employer to thousands of native Paraguayans in the middle of tropical Forrest
>Set up social welfare system for local natives to pay them back. Schools and hospitals
>Be so successful that natives from all over Paraguay move to the Mennonite settlements asking for work.
>Mennonites struggling to keep up with demands of natives. Reach carrying capacity

God, this debunks sociological explanations for third world country, and really drives home that genetic and behavior are what determine nations. A primitive cult of Europeans, due to their sheer collective behavior, manage to create first world conditions in Paraguay. Just imagine what type of societies eugenics can create...

>>11391028
no, eugenics is always eugenics

>>11391030
>mennonites with school education are much more successful than natives without any education
God, this debunks sociological explanations!

This thread is proof that both leftists and people who hate eugenics are anti-scientific and also evil. It is also very schizophrenic because these people deny that genetics impact IQ and behavior, but then are scared of these traits being selected for in humans as if they were genetic. There is no moral reason to oppose eugenics, indeed, its borderline evil because by opposing eugenics, you support dysgenics. Apparently, the accumulation of bad genetics is better then the accumulation of good genetics. How far will the anti-eugenicists go, maybe they will ban human couples, because humans already play a role in selecting what traits they want to pass onto the next generations.

>>11391044
yeah, it’s probably the culture, not the genes. much better.

>>11391044
mennonites don't have state education and never engaged in state education, in a sense, the mennonits have never been educated, and I am not even sure if they are similar to the Amish, were girls stop their schooling at age 16, so some do not even have high school level education. That means, a mennonite is more successful then a Paraguayan university student. Genetics, not environment, is what ultimately influences human societies.

The sociological explanation is so silly, if its schooling and not their genes that cause life success, then theoretically, no human should be successful because none of the very first humans had any education period.

>>11390898
>ONE guy posts retarded shit claiming he’s an atheist
>”ALL atheists are retarded” - you
for your mental competence there aren’t even any words.

He's just talking about WHETHER it would work. He's not advocating for it.

>>11391044
>Literacy was about 93.6% and 87.7% of Paraguayans finish the 5th grade according to UNESCO's last Educational Development Index 2008. Literacy does not differ much by gender.[95] A more recent study[66] reveals that attendance at primary school by children between 6 and 12 years old is about 98%.

>>11391061
>That means, a mennonite is more successful then a Paraguayan university student.
I'd wager a guess that most Paraguyan university students don't learn how to farm at university and also don't move to the tropical forrest to become farmers after finishing their education
guess what, I'm worse at plumbing than a plumber too, doesn't mean the plumber is genetically more gifted

>>11391068
>2008
>other guy posts about something that started 1921
>1/8th of paraguyans don't even finish 5th grade

>>11391067
but it’s anathema! it must not work or next minute the brownshirts will march on the streets!
... at least that’s what I get from the hysterics itt and in the twitter thread.

>>11391070
it’s forest. the forrest, that is gump.

>>11389461
>First of all he literally says eugenics would work
It does work.

there’s a guy in the twitter thread who complains about not picking the most important battle to fight. that guy obviously can’t imagine other people not thinking about success in life in terms of battles fought. many such cases.

>>11391076
>twitter
There are only idiots on Twitter.

>>11391072
>13% don't finish 5th grade
>natives have no education

>>11389682
it's more complicated than that-but working breed german shephards tend to be longer lived than wolves, for example.

>>11389420
rope yourself faggot

>>11389409

He's not wrong but it's stupid.

NO ONE has EVER made an argument against eugenics based on if it could "work scientifically". Why did he feel the need to say this? The moral argument has always been the argument used against eugenics, nothing else.

Domesticated animals also have smaller brains
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a14392897/domesticated-brains/

So I don't know what he's on about but it wouldn't work.

>>11391136
>NO ONE has EVER made an argument against eugenics based on if it could "work scientifically".
>>11391140
>So I don't know what he's on about but it wouldn't work.

>>11389420
Christian here. Dawkins is an embarrassment but not for the reasons you mentioned. Holy shit lmao

Further, eugenics would be a pretty based way at eliminating genetic diseases and generally raising the standards for humans everywhere.

>>11391162
But suffering is due to free will !!!

>>11391171
Low tier athiest bait won't diminish my faith.

If I didn't want to live in a world where I'm able to stub my toe, I'd kill myself, whether I was Christian or atheist.

I suggest you do the same.

>>11390019
Or maybe he's a biologist who is passionate about his work and hence annoyed when people conflate a method being unethical or unpractical with it being straight up biologically impossible. Pretty disingenuous of you to assume the best explanation for his post is that he secretly totally wants eugenics to be tried again, especially since he also explicitly states he thinks it shouldn't.

>>11391178
Suicide is a grave sin.

>>11391050
If you're going to define eugenics in such a broad manner such that your mother and father's engagement in the activity without the cognizance of the concept, then some forms of it are probably moral. If you're going to go turbo-authoritarian and start some sort of tinder-esque algorithm which decides who and which humans procreate, under some arbitrary standard, and limit the liberties of individuals who want to pair up according to their own free will, then that might be immoral. What is and isn't moral does not pertain to test tubes, particle accelerators, or science. That's in the OP and even Dawkins somehow recognizes that, being the midwit that he is.

I'll be an idiot and state that 1st world countries are performing eugenics on themselves already without the need of some strong and overbearing reproduciton enforcement and regulation entity. The idea of eugenics has two primary goals, which is to promote the good genes and to reduce the bad genes. In order to implement an effective policy on reproduction, the idea which certain eugenicists believe is to regulate reproduction and create a regulatory body whose primary mission is to promote the health of a species through regulating procreation. Now of course, we need to bring this under the lens of economics and the market place, in that regulations distort incentives and can sometimes lead to inefficient allocations of resources (if you deny this, you are basically a leftist retard). The sexual marketplace already has mechanisms and the effects of eugenics already without the need of a governing body, hence selection and evolution.

Consider this a primitive sexual libertarian stance I have developed here, which refutes sexual socialism and similar forms of eugenics which impedes on the liberties of individuals to engage in voluntary and free sexual association.

>>11389420
as an arab muslim, this nigger-tier post deserves nothing less than a proper islamic beheading for all of humanity will be better off without a loss in their intelligence

>>11390433
That individual pining for you but will never know your love because you have given it to another disagrees, anon. Why have you chosen thusly!? You eugenicist you.

Eugenics is the future no matter how bad the weaklings scream, bad genetics must be purged and it is only a matter of time that they will. Eugenics or not.

>>11389409
Why did Twitter leftists have such a knee jerk reaction to this? What kind of fucking retard thinks eugenics wouldn't work for humans when its been applied to farm animals and even crops. The common counter i'm seeing dishonestly brought up is dogs when it's pretty fucking clear that the reason dog breeds have genetic problems is because of generations inbreeding and just the selection of traits by breeders that don't favour "health" or survival.

Just because eugenics and selective breeding can be done poorly is not an argument that it wouldn't work on humans. Why must this be said.

>>11391984
It's because everyone there just wants to show how much they're morally superior to Dawkings. They don't give a crap about interpreting correctly what the guy said nor about producing an counterargument that is logically consistent, they just want to look good in front of their peers by using their outrage as a signal of how virtuous they are.(i.e. how against eugenics they are).

>>11389409
I bet some, if not all of these mouthbreathing leftists would instantly jump in to defend racemixing on scientific grounds a la hybrids in the animal kingdom exist too and produce stronger offspring but completely seethe when the word eugenics is dropped by a white man. They all would have clapped if Dawkins was black or some other minority.

>>11392170
>>11391984
>leftists
Those are liberals.

>>11391040
That's check and mate. Women denying me sex is eugenics. If eugenics are immoral then moral women are obligated to have sex with me. If this is not so then eugenics are moral and then it is both moral and, probably, in the interest of the species to chemically castrate Jamal.

If eugenics is immoral, what about abortions?