/sci/ - Science & Math

It literally cannot on any meaningful timeframe you stupid nigger.

The means of advanced gene therapy and modification do not exist. Any such programs would be even more of a crapshoot than breeding for traits in dogs and take far, far longer to confirm the efficacy.

Eugenics is too low bandwidth, you dumb kike.

>the christian post

>>>/sci/rules/3

>>11409288
Literally deciding to not have kids with autism or dwarfism is eugenics

>>11409294
And yet it has done fuck all to prevent midges and mongo genes from expressing in the first place. That is not eugenics.

>>11409294
Wow, I didn't know 100% accurate prenatal screening of autism was a thing now.

>>11409288
What is your criteria that must be met for success? If we paid off the bottom 50% of the population to be rendered unable to reproduce, wouldn't that make a significant improvement after just one generation?

>>11409288
Not only would eugenics work, it has literally already been done successfully in the past. Both the american slave trade and recently the chinese government have had successful human eugenics programs.

>>11409288
>>11409392
Not to mention Singaporean subsidization of the reproduction of the educated, or the general way that aristocrats have emphasized reproducing with the intelligent in the past. Additionally, there are many traits that we wholly understand that are beneficial, like decreased susceptibility to cancers or lack of susceptibility to genetic diseases, or high oxygen efficiency, or efficient metabolism, or building muscle. Tell me, what papers are you sourcing your data from?

>>11409299
Yeah theres more midgets than every before now, they make up more than 0.000000000000000000000000000001% of the population way more than 0.000000000000000000000000001, won't be long before they are 100%

>>11409280
Eugenics was never about improving the human race, although that was always invoked as the excuse. It was always about white men obsessed with non-white men breeding with their women and sterilizing (and when possible killing) anyone that fell under the nebulously defined umbrella of "feeble-minded."
>>11409387
In the time it would take you to breed a race of people that score one standard deviation above the baseline on an IQ test, we'll have fucking androids and cyborgs.

>>11409280
OBSERVING THAT EUGENICS IS OBVIOUSLY POSSIBLE MEANS THAT HE'S BAD BECAUSE EUGENICS = HOLOCAUST

>>11409666
>MDs are untrustworthy therefore racism
Brilliant

>>11409280
Eugenics is absolutely worthless, any advances that could be made will be completely eclipsed by genetic engineering. Why the fuck would anyone want to blindly make changes hoping for the best when you can just engineer that shit while knowing what you're doing?

>>11409744
>noooo you can't breed desirable traits in plants and animals
Why do people get so touchy about this topic?

>>11409288
>It literally cannot on any meaningful timeframe
we've seen a reduction in the polygenic educatability score over the last century in many countries so obviously dysgenics works at a meaningful timeframe...never pay dumb people to have kids

>>11409744
because gene editing is completely overblown and ignores complex gene interactions you need selective sweep effects.
gene mechanisms are best for removing harmful mutant genes

>>11409280
The fact that you made this post indicates that you wrongly think you’d survive any eugenic culling

>>11409288
The whole of human history is eugenic and dysgenic actions.

>>11409288
>The means of advanced gene therapy and modification do not exist.
That's not required, only policies that reward the best and brightest for reproduction and penalize the worst and dullest if they attempt reproduction

>>11409850
there's a theory that societies rise and fall as the balance between dysgenics and eugenics shifts.

The sad thing is Dawkins was a credible biologist and might have actually advanced the science before he realised controversy sells more books than logic.

>>11409751
>>11409802
My wife is studying genetics and I can promise you that either
A. You don't understand what genetic engineering means.
B. Don't understand how we do it.

For 10,000 years we've been engineering the genes of plants and animals through random selection. Now, we're doing with … fuck, just go read a fucking book or something. I'm not going to explain the whole goddamn thing to idiots in a 4chan thread. I can't believe I have to. How the hell do you idiots think we create genetically modifying corn? Random selection? Breeding? Do you not know what genetic engineering means?

I just … I just fucking can't.

>>11409827
>eugenics only works through culling
damn you one dumb nigga.

>>11409290
>t. fedora breaking rule 3

>>11409280
>dawkins

not science nor math

>>11409870
listen kid, genome metrics mean shit if you aren't looking at performance, you need a combination to get the best out of the system, just look at livestock breeding.
if you only look at genome metrics then long term you will be outcompeted by someone purely using performance based selection.

>>11409878
*or crop breeding
*if you only look at the genome and assume that transferring in one or two genes is all you need to do then long...

>>11409870
good argument retard

>>11409280
Who's going to decide who should breed and how? It might work but would be impossible to implement on practice

>implying we need eugenics
natural selection and sexual selection are more than enough, just stop trying to obstruct selection from happening because it's unfair.
if we let wuhan virus wipe out all immune-system-lets then all weaklings and betas will die since high testosterone requires strong immune system

>>11409280

Please tell me you're not so Goddamn stupid as to be making this argument unironically.

Human agency is critical. If someone, or a couple, decides to not have children because they think their genes are inferior for whatever reason, that's fine. If two people decide to have children together because they think their genes are superior or something, that's also fine.

Controlling who can breed with whom, however, goes into oppressive/genocidal territory. No one should be forced to have a child with anyone they don't want to, and no couple should be prevented from having a child if they want to have one. (I would, however, recommend proper education for that latter scenario; if a couple wants to have a child in order to save their marriage or relationship, for example, then they should be informed of how fucking terrible of an idea that is and how cruel it would be for the hypothetical child.)

Eugenics was a popular idea during the birth control movement in the 1920's, as the idea that a WOMAN could CHOOSE to not have children was a super novel concept and people were all excited about its applications. Then Hitler came along and demonstrated how awful eugenics actually is in practice, and it fell wildly out of favor with almost everyone.

It's really fuckin' simple, and you should feel ashamed that you need it explained to you.

>>11409280
>The Christian Post

Cringe

>>11409904
>sexual selection
that is just over fitting. it's not good, it's essentially what happens with selective breeding on dogs just the natural variant. over focus on useless or at best obsolete traits leading to overall poor fitness or even extinction as result.

>>11409870
>why yes, I oppose selective breeding in favour of genetic engineering
>omg by genetic engineering I meant selective breeding
Either u r retard or I am being trolled

Why is /sci/ so triggered by genetic engineering? Are you all Ashekanzim?

>>11409288
Kill those of lesser genetic stock. It's that fucking simple.

>>11409280
Eugenics is unnecessary. Anything that can be done with "muh high IQ population" can be done with an average population. In fact, even more so as there were more people working together. The main problem being education and programs to try helping people not being a burden to society
>B-BUT MUH OVERPOPULATION!!!
That doesn't exist for humans retard.

>>11409919
>doublethink
>le appeal to authority/populum
>fuckin'

Complete retard and you'll never even realize it.

>>11409944
> Anything that can be done with "muh high IQ population" can be done with an average population. In fact, even more so as there were more people working together.
false, for the same reason a corporation isn't like a superhuman AI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pUA3LsEaw

that said eugenics isn't the way to go. biology is limited.

>>11409944
This post wouldn't have been made by a mentally sound person and is itself a demonstration of how necessary eugenics are.

>>11409942
Conditioning.

The state will continue until the the elites do 180 on it just as they did with the homo thing.

So, anyone here read what he is wrote? Because as usual media(creatonist one in this case) chases the controversy without understanding what he said. Similar to Stallmann's case but i dont think it will lead to cancellation

>>11409919
This is so cardboard-brained that it's like reading a parody, but there's no hint of irony in it.

>>11409947
I don't think you're understanding this. With eugenics you have 1000 high iq/healthy people and 0 low iq/unhealthy. Without eugenics you have 700 high iq/healthy people and 1300 unhealthy people.

Normally it would be better to have nore better human beings, but this assumes that the low iq/unhealthy people are worthless when they aren't. They can still work and help put society. Therefore, it would be better without eugenics because you have 4000 hands helping society rather than 1400 even if those 4000 hands aren't as good as the 1400

>>11409963
you wanna know how i know you didn't watch the video?

>>11409919
>Controlling who can breed with whom, however, goes into oppressive/genocidal territory

Lol pretty sure incest is still illegal you idiot

>>11409290
>bitching about the religion that originally pushed for eugenics in the US
It's nice to know that WASPs were right

>>11409967
Because no one is going to watch a 15 minute video for a 4chan argument and although it would make more sense for you to actually made the argument yourself, you have to resort to YouTube videos to not seem retarded?

>>11409971
more that i'm just too lazy to be bothered with pointing out why your claim is so blunderingly stupid it isn't worth my time to write it out to you when there is material that covers it.

>>11409947
So what is the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of HDDs?

>>11409974
depends on the bus.

>>11409968
Cringe.

Incest is totally different and creepy and rightfully should stay illegal.

You are probably emotionally invested into the issue because of your trump voting redneck family...

>>11409980
why is it creepy?

>>11409972
>I-I have an argument! I just don't want to post it!
Alright kid.

>>11409984
Because its often rape or just abuse and produces children that are debilitated and dysfunctional? Like you?

>>11409978
so would we have to include the time to copy all the data to another disk drive before travel?
lets assume a 0.5Tonne payload @100Kilometres per hour down the motorway

>>11409968
Incest is legal and perfectly justified.

>>11409986
i did post it. it's right there. so in a nutshell having a bunch of avg people in a corporation or this case society will only be able to parallelize their simpleminded tasks but they will be capped at doing more intellectually demanding things. so yeah that 1000 high iqs will likely exceed your 700/1300 split which will likely get burdened by all the dipshits.

>>11409989
with a total travel time of 10 hours

>>11409980
>and rightfully should stay illegal.

It’s legalized in many places and will become more legal as time goes on. There is nothing wrong with incest. :)

>>11410001
except for all the deleterious recessives

>>11409280
>IMPROVING HUMANS

Lets start by removing OP.

>>11410005
this, exactly why there should be reproductive controls. and since it's wrong for incest, it's wrong for huntington's, cystic fibrosis, etc.

>>11410011
yet fucking your 3rd cousin is apparently an optimal balance between in/out breeding

>>11410015
lol wut?

>>11410017
inbreeding depression is more obvious and intense but outbreeding can be similarly harmful

>>11410005
Just use protection or abort the fetuses lol

>>11410020
*to overall fitness.

>>11410020
sure but that rarely applies to humans. other than amish and what not with inbreeding depression. and the overwhelming majority of human genetic diversity is practically ubiquitous amongst human populations so not much should be expected from shagging anyone other than close relatives. out breeding depression isn't something documented in humans. just find the highest iq girl you can and you good.

>>11409993
>bunch of avg people in a corporation or this case society will only be able to parallelize their simpleminded tasks but they will be capped at doing more intellectually demanding things
Except there are still smarter people in the society and you have multiple heads working together to solve a problem. Which could potentially offset the lack of high IQ.
> so yeah that 1000 high iqs will likely exceed your 700/1300 split
Maybe if they aren't actually trying to be productive and choose to argue on /sci/ all day rather then trying to figure out how to get to Mars
>which will likely get burdened by all the dipshits.
Having programs, education and other investments will make sure that there are less "dipshits" in the society.

>>11410032
I think this problem is akin to can we make a baby in 1 month if we get 9 women pregnant. Fundamentally broken idea and thinking.

10 retards with 50 iq are not equal to 500iq person. They aren't equal to 100iq person. They are just 10 retards with 50 iq.

Do you happen to be a retard?

>>11410032
>Except there are still smarter people in the society and you have multiple heads working together to solve a problem.
not as many smart heads. won't be as productive for those intellectually demanding tasks which are more paralleleized in the society with 300 more. which was the point, yeah sure society can operate without eugenics, the pt is eugenics would certain improve things.
>Maybe if they aren't actually trying to be productive and choose to argue on /sci/ all day rather then trying to figure out how to get to Mars
well here is your society without eugenics in action.
>Having programs, education and other investments will make sure that there are less "dipshits" in the society.
education only does so much. it does work but if you ever tutored or taught a class you'd know some kids just can't go as far as others do.

>>11410032
>Except there are still smarter people in the society and you have multiple heads working together to solve a problem.
not as many smart heads. won't be as productive for those intellectually demanding tasks which are more paralleleized in the society with 300 more. which was the point, yeah sure society can operate without eugenics, the pt is eugenics would improve certain things.
>Maybe if they aren't actually trying to be productive and choose to argue on /sci/ all day rather then trying to figure out how to get to Mars
well here is your society without eugenics in action.
>Having programs, education and other investments will make sure that there are less "dipshits" in the society.
education only does so much. it does work but if you ever tutored or taught a class you'd know some kids just can't go as far as others do.

Eugenics is the most moral position unless you want billions to die in about 200 years during the collapse of our society due to low intelligence, which could spell the end of our species, most likely through nondecommissioned NPPs.
Modern considerations of eugenics shouldn't be seen as compulsory sterilization, prosecution or whatever dystopian vision its critics have of it because it could be done entirely voluntarily.
Instead it should be recognized as the important task of keeping the balance of intelligent individuals that can maintain our complex infrastructure that is dependent on its intelligent specialists.
Our infrastructure would collapse if such individuals were to become few in the advent of idiocracy and if you consider the time of FIFTY years it takes to decommission a power plant it would be very likely cause disaster without a stable amount of highly intelligent people, perhaps it would happen even earlier due to human error as we become stupider.

In short, we need intelligent individuals to maintain our infrastructure, if they're too few we risk a hard landing on societal collapse that could be so harsh we might go extinct.
If a scenario of collapse were to be inevitable but with our intelligence intact we would ensure a softer landing and a chance at rebuilding civilization to get another shot at reaching a singularity, passing a great filter or whatever goal you consider humanity to have.

>>11409280
I want to eugenic my kids hating Abrahamic people and killing then one day. Can i do that?

>>11410085
leave hw alone. leave that thai lady boy fucking webdev cripple alone.

>>11410113
>i shill for fattie nolegs

>>11410005
But that's literally eugenics you fucking mongoloid

>>11410118
I don't follow you?

>>11410041
Most people arent 50 IQ and those that are can just do lower jobs while others can get things done. Having multiple 100 IQs could definitely balance out not having that 135 IQ person with a good environment and proper synergy.
>>11410047
>not as many smart heads. won't be as productive for those intellectually demanding tasks which are more paralleleized in the society with 300 more
Except you have more decent hands to work with in order to make up for the lack of smarter people. Then it comes down to the amount if effort and cooperation the average people are willing to put in.
>yeah sure society can operate without eugenics, the pt is eugenics would improve certain things
Except it comes with the price of limiting people's rights unnecessarily and having less human labor to work with.
>education only does so much. it does work but if you ever tutored or taught a class you'd know some kids just can't go as far as others do.
Yes, but in 2020 we can at least make sure there aren't total retards and don't end up as criminals or NEETs.

>>11409937
>muh peacock and irish elk
anomalies, sexual selection is working for almost all species including humans.
human females usually don't like excess of preferred features (feature being shilled by media doesn't count), e.g. height. most women prefer men between 180-200cm tall but they don't want men with acromegaly that look like neanderthals or outrageously tall men. pic related is very very masculine but most women think that it looks disgusting and weird because it's too masculine

>>11410159
>Most people arent 50 IQ and those that are can just do lower jobs
Anon i think you should inform yourself better, because at that level a person isn't even capable of tying shoes, let alone having any kind of a job.

>>11410165
>anomalies, sexual selection is working for almost all species including humans.
except they're not. it is the effect of sexual selection running its course.
>human females usually don't like excess of preferred features (feature being shilled by media doesn't count)
the reason they are shilled by the media is because female sexual selection is running amok.
>height. most women prefer men between 180-200cm tall but they don't want men with acromegaly that look like neanderthals or outrageously tall men.
they are still selecting for greater and greater height. which btw isn't healthy as pic related.
>pic related is very very masculine but most women think that it looks disgusting and weird because it's too masculine
which is another issue and why i brought up the dog breeding. human females care about features like breeders care about pug ears and noses. not traits that are beneficial to the organism. just aesthetically pleasing to them. that guy could be a yammering retard and is still far more fit than a high iq avg looking guy given this fitness landscape. face it, sexual selection is trashy overfitting.

>>11410159
>Except you have more decent hands to work with in order to make up for the lack of smarter people. Then it comes down to the amount if effort and cooperation the average people are willing to put in.
really depends on the task. in many scenarios you'd effectively have more than half the population being incapable of contribution.
>Except it comes with the price of limiting people's rights unnecessarily and having less human labor to work with.
depends what you see as necessary, optimizing your human livestock err... i mean citizenry for intellectual tasks than it is necessary. personally i wouldn't mind restrictions to my reproductive rights if it meant being surrounded by fewer imbeciles.
>Yes, but in 2020 we can at least make sure there aren't total retards and don't end up as criminals or NEETs.
boy do you have a low bar for people to not be considered total retards.

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/244957806