/sci/ - Science & Math

yes. why is this a question?

Yes, many great side effects included

purely socioeconomic reasons

>>11390515
yes but first you would have to have one or two, maybe three big wars where all the bravest ones die

>>11390515
no this cant be done in any reasonable amount of time. average human growth rate to be able to make children is 16 years roughly. for a dog its like 2 years. so you would need to breed 10 or 20 generations to get any effect that you can notice. so for a dog it would take a skilled breeder 20 to 30 years to start making progress. for a human it would take 160 to 320 years. and thats assuming 10-20 generations of selective breeding is enough. which it might not be.

>>11390515
Yes. That's why humans lock up or kill those who break their arbitrary rules

>>11390515
Yes and anyone saying otherwise doesn't want to face reality

>>11391081
Is this achievable natty?

>>11392117
>you would need to breed 10 or 20 generations to get any effect that you can notice
The russian experiment on fox domestication started getting good results at the 4th generation.

>>11390515
Obviously yes.
This is similar to why ashkenazi jews are so much smarter than whites.
Because they were selectively bred by their culture

>>11390515
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpjP3mxv21s
with the right criteria selection works

>>11392496
this

>>11392511
>dog.rar

>>11392564
First of all, Mediterraneans are west Asians (Neolithic farmers).
Some ashkenazi jews cluster closer to Europeans though (especially slavs)

>>11391081
to be honest werent those dogs specifically bread to be stupid looking with methods like inbreeding?

>>11392619
kek

>>11393404
organisations like the kennel club are shitty and the whole dog show industry is divorced from sanity

>>11390515
Depends. "Hard" eugenics, where you kill off those you deem undesirable is a bad idea, since those seemingly undesirable genes may have unforseen advantages, and you could cause catastrophic damage by removing them.
"Soft" eugenics, however, where you create a closed society where only those with desired traits are allowed (while the rest is left alone) could work reasonably well.

>>11390515
Depends. "Hard" eugenics, where you kill off those you deem undesirable is a bad idea, since those seemingly undesirable genes may have unforseen advantages, and you could cause catastrophic damage by removing them.
"Soft" eugenics, however, where you create a closed society where only those with desired traits are allowed (while the rest is left aside as a source of potentially advantageous genes) could work reasonably well.

If abortions work, so do eugenics.

>>11390515
What makes you think the process hasn't already happened and isn't still happening?

>>11390515
yes, we call them Asians.

>>11390515
Define "work." It has been done before. Guess this is the result.

>>11390515
Yes, obviously, open your eyes, the Japanese have already done it. They've done it by getting rid of people who weren't very obedient, you know, the usual way.

>>11392076
>he's confusing obedience with cowardice
what a retard