/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11842008
Yes
You can start off by killing yourself.

>>11842009
nobody said anything about killing, anon. Smart people should simply be encouraged to have offspring with each other. It would massively speed up research in the scientific field.

singularity is in, like 15 years dude

and what's up with your arbitrary cutoff of 100?

>>11842008
sexual maladaption

we would be ugly

>Japan and Europe
>Spent several centuries ruthlessly culling violent criminals from the gene pool
>Resulting peaceful societies (when homogenous)

ITS JUST A COINKYDINK, 80IQ (read; mentally retarded, even the army can't find a use for people with that level of intelligence) NIGGERS WOULD BE JUST AS LAW ABIDING AND ORDERLY IF YOU GAVE DEM MO PROGRAMS N SHIEEEET

>>11842008
Soft eugenics is perfectly fine and reasonable especially with the increasing ease of dna sequencing allowing some people to make more informative choices when it comes to their children
>>11842124
Someone actually had a reasonable theory in that the death penalty was an active eugenical tool that was practically ubiquitous for thousands of years

>>11842064
Intelligence positively correlates to beauty, so no, we would also look better. Ugly dumbfucks tend to have a lot of kids.

>>11842124
we dont need to fuck with people harder, we need to stop fucking with people..
and by we i mean them

>>11842008
>Is /sci/ a pro-eugenics board?
/sci/ is a transhumanist/posthumanist board. Why use failed 20th century methods if we got genetic engineering, nanomachines and cybernetics? Retroviral metamorphosis, designer babies or wet nanoware are a millionfold more powerful, precise and productive than playing with loaded dices. Transhumanism also doesn`t require a tyrannic regime, just a will to change the world.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3421

we are horrible judges
petty losers really
>>11842157
this is like humanity as a whole getting a shitty tattoo

>>11842124
>Europe
>Came down hard as fuck for a few centuries during the dark ages, removed violent criminals from the gene pool pretty effectively compared to anywhere else in the world

>Japan
>For nearly 1000 years would kill even suspected criminals without hesitation or mercy

>Results; European societies reasonably peaceful compared to anywhere else but still with some shenanigans going on, meanwhile japan is martial and orderly as fuck, don't have to worry about any criminal activity at all, even while foreign, drunk and in a shitty part of town

Haha yep no genetic link to criminal behaviour here whatsoever, are you racist or something?

>>11842168
>this is like humanity as a whole getting a shitty tattoo
You may say, it is impossible for a man to become like the Machine. And I would reply, that only the smallest mind strives to comprehend its limits.

>>11842176
the tiniest brainlet on earth cant see the beauty of God's design

>>11842176
>give nigger superintelligence
>he is now superintelligent nigger and will devise the most cunning schemes possible to steal air Jordans and rape White women.

Thanks scientologists

here is some speculation of a 'master plan'
Digital Fluid which works like a Microchip is introduced
via vaccinations against different diseases. A tiny Digital
code, the symbol of Satan, the six, is thus introduced into
the bodies, Human DNA will mutate and the people and animals will be controlled
via satellite through Supercomputers.
https://www.wuxiapptec.com/about/location
https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606

>>11842008
I have an Israeli friend that has utterly convinced me that eugenics is the only way forward for humanity
They don't have a no child allowed forward initiative like we do in the US, so they don't spend their most crucial formative years in remedial classes letting the cognitively impaired catch up.
My friend graduated high school and after 6 months of training was a physician's assistant making 60k.
A year later she is doing unsupervised ultrasounds and making 80k.
She's in med school now. This is pretty much the standard career timeline for them, one of her friends was a software engineer for the government making close to 200k at age 20

If people knew truly how badly the lesser races are holding us back, no one would be against eugenics

>>11842219
alrite sanic

>>11842219
Amazing how well a country can function when it gets given billions and billions of free dollars from the west and can set literally any policies (lmao drop white phosphorous on that hospital Schlomo it'll be funny) it wants because it can pull the holocaust card if anyone questions them.

>>11842124
The fact that this is controversial is astounding
I guess it shouldn't be considering most people can't even comprehend the basics of biology

>>11842219
I started to realize something was up when I found out most Chinese kids learn calculus by 8th grade

>>11842008
>Is /sci/ a pro-eugenics board?
no, please fuck off

>>11842277
You need to go back to /r/ifuckinglovescience, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that selectively breeding for desired traits is highly effective. Read; the entire history of animal husbandry and plant cultivation.

>>11842281
fucking moron, I can post a dozen reasons for why eugenics of humans wouldn't work the way you think it does, but you'd probably miss the point

we have this goddamn thread every fucking day, it's for /pol/tards who ignore actual science whenever its posted

>>11842283
IT WON'T WORK BECAUSE HUMANS ARE TOTALLY NOT ANIMALS BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS SO

>>11842283
Still waiting on that actual science. . .
Here's something for you to chew on in the meantime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunner_syndrome#:~:text=Brunner%20syndrome%20is%20a%20rare,sleep%20disorders%20and%20mood%20swings.

intellect is smelling bullshit from an early age and not letting peacocks persuade you of anything
people that are invested with changing the world from an early age are sometimes prideful idiots mostly
looking to trample on others as opposed to working alongside them - probably learned from home.
the problem with money is that it is seen as success but that is not true. strengthening one's innate abilities
and creating as much positive energy as possible without needing much in return is the success of a living organism.
money is power, power is influence and seemingly our take into changing the way the energy flows on this planet..
the balance is rough but its not extreme one way or the other and the illusion of money is tipped in the favor of greed

>>11842283
Works staggeringly well for every single other species of flora and fauna on the planet, but not humans. This is your brain on leddit, lel.

>>11842286
>>11842288
>>11842292
If you retards insist:

I would define eugenics as an intervention (by means other than natural, kin, or sexual selection) with the purpose of binging about a genetic change at the population level such that the prevalence of undesirable traits decreases, or the prevalence of desirable traits increases. Note that ‘undesirable’ and ‘desirable’ are inherently ideologically defined, since we are talking about selection that does not involve typical evolutionary selection mechanisms. An example of this is selective breeding of livestock to increase milk yield.

In humans, as opposed to narrowly circumscribed populations of livestock / pets, this would not practically work for several reasons.

Humans are exposed to very different environments across individuals, so most of trait variation is not due to genetic factors but to differences in environment. One consequence is that it makes it hard to identify subjects who have desirable genetic characteristics, especially when considering polygenic traits that people would tend to think are desirable based on ideological reasons.

It is possible to measure genetic potential directly from genetic markers and what we know from this is that these genetic predictors perform poorly. We can also tell that there are many important, very rare genetic variants relevant for phenotype which we will never be able to identify. We thus have an absolute ceiling on our ability to assess an individual’s genetic fitness from either their current performance or from their genome and we know that the potential ability to do this is extremely low, far too low to be useful for selective breeding.

(comment too long)

>>11842294
Animals are bred in controlled environments and have short generational times with large numbers of offspring. In these circumstances selective breeding can produce desired changes in a small number of specific traits. Humans on the other hand have relatively long generational times, low numbers of offspring, and massive genetic flow between populations (low rates of inbreeding). Selective breeding in humans would thus be extremely slow compared to other species.

Removal of undesirable traits assumes that: a) these traits arise directly from the genome b) that genetic variants responsible for those traits are present in the population and will disappear upon removal. Both assumptions are wrong because a) phenotype is a product of both genome and environment, b) many traits that are detrimental to fitness arise because of de-novo mutations that cannot be selected out, and c) recessive genes cannot be selected out when considering phenotype alone.

These are only some of the reasons that came to mind, but there are many more. Regarding its potential: selective breeding of humans in a tightly circumscribed population, besides being decidedly unethical (in my opinion), impractical to the point of impossible (for above reasons), will always come with deleterious and unintended trait selection. Yes we can select for traits in animals, but the species where we have done so are typically quite unhealthy too (dogs that look cute can’t breathe well; cows that produce a lot of milk develop chronic joint problems and produce milk with low protein content, etc). So its potential for trait selection is limited, and its potential to damage the scientific community as well as the population is vast.

>>11842298
>We can also tell that there are many important, very rare genetic variants relevant for phenotype which we will never be able to identify
and to elaborate on this: In polygenic traits, the genome can account for a large portion of trait variance, yet paradoxically GWAS only identifies genes that account for a proportion low trait variance individually. This tells us that there must exist genes that account for a disproportionate amount of trait variance but do so through combinatorial means that study of the genome is unable to bring to light when considering genes as isolated functional entities. What's more, even if this view changes and new tools arise that allow us to chart these currently obfuscated combinatorial mechanisms, it will be impossible to chart all relevant combinations because the search space is larger than what occurs in the population and rare variants will still be overshadowed by trait variance that is due to environmental variance.

>>11842294
>>11842298
>>11842301
I'm just going to leave these up for people who are actually interested in the science to read. The people I've written this to in response are determined to miss the point and I will not reply further to them.

>>11842298
>dogs that look cute can’t breathe well
>MUH FUCKING
>PUGS

A classic and truly reddit tier argument that totally ignores working dog breeds that have been specifically selected for various traits, often multiple traits, bred correctly, have very few genetic flaws, are extremely purebred/in red and are all renowned as excellent pets with amazing temperaments. See;

>Border collie
>German shepherd
>Greyhound
>Whippet
>Blue heeler
>Labrador
>Etc...

I skimmed through your post and this caught my eye, to be frank if that is your assessment of selective breeding then I can't even be bothered to address anything else because you are clearly just copy pasting shit you have no knowledge about.

>>11842294
>>11842298
>>11842301
I hope you have a child with down's syndrome
Good luck defending your retarded Lewontonian position then

>>11842318
anon I'm not the guy you're replying to but you're forgetting a few things
>Border collie
the often suffer from epilepsy
>German shepherd
get hip dysplasia
>Greyhoud
Cancer, especially bone cancer (osteosarcoma)

I can go on but I think you get the point

>>11842318
ok buddy, nice skim reading.

>>11842294
> most of trait variation is not due to genetic factors but to differences in environment
This a vague statement, but I believe intelligence is by some accounts 50% heritable at a minimum. Either way there is certainly a genetic component.
>It is possible to measure genetic potential directly from genetic markers and what we know from this is that these genetic predictors perform poorly.
You're assuming we would measure genetic markers as opposed to simply select traits as is done in a animals. Castrate anybody who commits a violent crime for example.
>Selective breeding in humans would thus be extremely slow compared to other species.
What of it?
>will always come with deleterious and unintended trait selection
No, it would not be a perfect, every time, all the time.
>We can also tell that there are many important, very rare genetic variants relevant for phenotype which we will never be able to identify
If would they be rare if they were important?
>besides being decidedly unethical
This probably the best argument and it is an appeal to emotion.

The majority of /sci/ are brainlets who think it would somehow personally benefit them instead of bar them from breeding.

But no, /sci/ in general does not support eugenics, discrimination, BLM, “decolonization”, or any other racist bullshit backed by pseudoscience

>>11842327
The only German shepherds that suffer from dysplasia are ones bred by puppy mill fuckheads for muh sloped back. Working dog heritage breed shepherds do not have any hip issues. I have raised 5 greyhounds and have a lot of contact with the breeding and racing community, bone cancer is about as common as it is in other dogs and generally occurs at the ripe age of 12+ years. Find me a fucking dog that doesn't have issues at that age. The point remains that working dogs, selectively bred for one or multiple specific traits are by far the most genetically healthy dogs you can find.

>>11842328
Rebuttal not detected, I can give you some time to find a nice upvoted reply on leddit of you want?

>>11842341
>selective breeding
>pseudoscience

I hope you won't be consuming any products of such poor pseudoscience such as, food.

>>11842346
>only German shepherds that suffer from dysplasia are ones bred by puppy mill fuckheads for muh sloped back
>selectively bred dogs are the most healthy you can find
>except for the ones who aren't healthy
gtfo already

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090023309004432

>>11842346
>Rebuttal not detected, I can give you some time to find a nice upvoted reply on leddit of you want?
I never intended to give you a rebuttal, dumb prick.

>>11842273
Most indian kids do that too

>>11842360
Oh dear you just strawmanned me and linked me an irrelevant article to the discussion, how embarrassing. Note I didn't just say any selectively bred dog, I said working dog, you know the difference right? I would also note that even the worst affected breed by hip dysplasia, the dachshund, was an amazing, top quality breed when it was being bred selectively for a purpose, when it was bred for muh aesthetic appearance it was all downhill from there.

>>11842369
How scientific of you

>>11842372
>Oh dear you just strawmanned me
fuck off I did not.

you said the only german shepards that suffer from HD are from pupy mills

That is clearly wrong, as the article shows

>>11842329
Not the anon who posted, but there being rare genetic variants which affect phenotype is important for at least one reason because there are a multitude of different rare genetic variants, and we have no way of knowing what they can cause in isolation or combination, and so selecting for such a variation and spreading it across a larger population could potentially be very harmful

>>11842380
That paper is a fucking joke, nearly 20% of German shepherds, even working bred ones suffer from dysplasia? Yeah maybe when they are 14 years old. Get the fuck out of here and throw your study in the trash because you have clearly no experience with dogs whatsoever.

>>11842400
>I don't like the numbers because they don't agree with my biassed views
>therefore said numbers belong in the trash
cope harder faggot

>>11842400
Also the title of the paper

>long bodied phenotypes are associated with hip dysplasia
>greyhounds
>2.1%

Mission failed, we'll get em next time.

Two questions for all pro-eugenics anons:
Who would decide which exact steps to do to achieve it?
Who would enforce it and how?

>>11842372
The thing is, when you selectively breed humans, you risk narrowing the scope of their potential actions in a disadvantageous way, and you could be accidentally selecting against creativity for instance when you select for sharper skillsets in image processing, assuming we breed for not "generalized intelligence," which is difficult to assess even now but specific concepts like pattern recognition, utilization of language, mathematics and logic, and lateral thinking independently. If we were to decide to make different "breeds" of people selected for those specific aspects of intelligence, that would be another case, but that would introduce a hard basis for separate processes of acculturation because of their different modes of thought

>>11842409
"the experts" of course

>>11842409
>government offers people 20k cash, lump sum, in return for getting themselves sterilised
>congratulations you just removed 95% of genetic refuse in one generation

>>11842416
seems to me like the only expert in this thread was arguing against doing it altogether

>>11842414
>If we were to decide to make different "breeds" of people selected for those specific aspects of intelligence, that would be another case, but that would introduce a hard basis for separate processes of acculturation because of their different modes of thought

How bluepilled can you be to not see that this is what has been going on for thousands of years

>>11842409
1: me because I'm obviously the smartest and bestest
2: the police and military force, known for respecting the most intelligence and not the most authoritative and like-minded voice in the room

>>11842417
Then why not just ban all welfare and be done with it even cheaper?

>>11842414
>when you selectively breed humans, you risk narrowing the scope of their potential actions in a disadvantageous way

A society consisting of individuals with high aptitude for one skill at the detriment of others and being made aware of it is much more desirable than one with a bunch of randoms doing whatever.

>>11842427
I dont think races were specifically bred for different scopes of intelligence per se, other traits notwithstanding, but even if true my whole point is we should be trying to avoid the racial strife that's been going on in heterogenous countries because of differences in cultures, because it's bad for society

>>11842432
Niggers in Africa are starving and have no medicine to speak of and yet seem to manage to pop out half a dozen kids a women. This idea is to remove the retarded, useless welfare class element overnight and permanently with a reasonable offer.

>>11842438
>we should be trying to avoid the racial strife

Simple fucking solution, close borders, repatriate non native individuals, congratulations you solved racism.

>>11842440
Many if not most people care more about the idea of their family and lineage surviving than a comfortable life. Just as well the wealthiest and most powerful among those groups would react negatively against that because it would "destroy important culture". It's why native Americans who are objectively poorer and more ignorant than natives who assimilated persist in trying to live obsolete lives.

>>11842435
I agree with this but the majority of people who exist are randoms doing whatever and they would not take kindly to creating a kind of class system built off of specialization, which is unfortunate because such a system inherently requires almost complete cooperation to operate

>>11842448
>Many if not most people care more about the idea of their family and lineage surviving than a comfortable life

Yeah, white people maybe. Look at literally the entire rest of the world, it doesn't matter how dirt poor or miserable their conditions are, they will continue to smash out babies with no fucks given. Actually hell, even poor white people on welfare also don't seem to give a shit, trailer trash stacey popping out four or five future crackheads.

>>11842294
>>11842298
>>11842301
fucking /thread

every scientist I know is against that shit, only plebbit tier retards perpetuate it

>>11842157
/thread

>>11842463
>reddit are the ones perpetuating eugenics
you have to go back

>>11842463
Imagine trying to claim rebbit are eugenicists, my sides.

>>11842460
The statement you greentext'ed agrees with what you say. The majority of people care more about their family lineage than comfortable lives, so they keep having kids instead of saving money and/or doing something more productive with their lives.

>>11842171
The gaps between white and black is merely one standard deviation and if you cleverly apply eugenics to black population within 50 years they will have a higher mean IQ; which is probably your worst nightmare because you're actually terrified of black people being smart since you have an anti-black agenda that is masked by the pretense of caring about biology and science.

>>11842428
i think i need an antaspiris on this , its givin me on a head-acheoWe :]

>>11842469
I didn't say or even imply that you fucking mong

>>11842480
>plebbit is not a subset of plebbit tier
you should try going back to school, or going there in the first place

>>11842480
>literally in the know about what redid says or does
wew lad, that sure figures

>>11842484
>and if you cleverly apply eugenics to black population within 50 years

Wow fucking racist much, are you trying to say they are stupid or something?

>>11842490
No I don't since I don't visit there unlike you clearly.

>>11842484
If we made black people as a whole smarter it would 1: fix many barriers to black people not being stuck in horrible positive feedback loops of violence and stupidity we call ghettos, 2: stop people who dislike them from having a valid reason to do so based off of perceived superiority, and 3: contribute to society as a whole because of a wide proportion of human beings becoming more equipped to deal with the world.

>>11842484
I am an extreme racist yes, and would be much happier with the black race being on par with the rest of the civilised world since I wouldn't have to worry about being mugged or carjacked on the way down to the shop.

>>11842497
>n-no I'm not a plebbiter swear ;_;
then how the fuck would you know if they perpetuate eugenics you fucking retard

>>11842484
>merely one standard deviation
>merely
A standard deviation between one population and another is hardly minor, anon.

Who gives a shit about race stuff when the age of designer babies has already arrived? Eugenics is obsolete, the future is GRAIN.

>>11842508
>implying the sjw hivemind would promote forced sexual selection and not ban it on sight

Please though, feel free to share us a selection of screenshot from their eugenics subforum or whatever.

>>11842509
You know that the inter-test variability of the SAME INDIVIDUAL performing an IQ test multiple times is > 1 SD, right?

>>11842516
>>11842516
Next you'll be telling us how IQ tests aren't valid because niggers can't understand the cultural context of shapes and patterns lmao.

>>11842516
No, and what's your source?
Right from the initial statement however, there's a big problem:
>performing an IQ test multiple times
You are not supposed to administer an IQ test multiple times, let alone in a brief period.

>>11842008
>Is /sci/ a pro-eugenics board?
Yes.

>>11842294
>>11842298
>>11842301
this

>Japan goes from brutal iron age fuedal warlord state to world class military and industrial nation almost entirely on their own in the span of maybe 60 years after the meiji restoration
>Niggers get left an entire continent of modern infrastructure for free
>60 years later it would almost be back to the stone age if it wasn't for the Chinese dumping money and projects in return for mining rights

Yep no genetic elements here, it's all whites fault.

Eugenics is a great idea. But, we need to do it looking forward to the future, not backward to the past. Re creating some artificial master race of aryans that never actually existed based on random traits that are associated with a totally ascientific fiction of a racial phenotype is just fucking idiocy.

As several anons have mentioned, the main problems are generational time, which is only a problem in terms of short sighted economics, there’s no reason we can’t do multiple-decade projects with a proper focus, and that humans are essentially generalists, selected for adaptability to many different environments, and optimizing for one environment is likely to cause huge problems when placed in another.

What we need to do is start off with the understanding that we can’t improve upon humans as a generalist, we can only optimize them for a general environment, and consciously choose to create several phenotypic gene pools that are each large enough to reproduce and more distinct than races.

>we can select some for intellectual work, focused on raising IQ, EQ and related traits, pale skin would be desirable to limit need for sun, as physical attributes are unimportant we should be able to mix non-neural related genes to avoid heritable illness
>we can select some for physical performance, size, muscle mass, bone density and proportionate structure, darker skin so they can take more sun is desirable, lower intellect is fine so they can focus on physical work
>as sea levels rise maybe some aquatic human to populate seasteads? Longer arms, short legs, bigger lungs+chest muscles, perhaps even webbed fingers
>maybe some short, high intellect, low-weight, slow metabolism, low food consumption phenotype for space travel?

I’m sure you can see the potential, genetics hasn’t really got there yet but another decade of AI gene scans and it’ll be doable

>>11842018
>no killing
>smart people having more babies
So contribute to the overpopulation issue? You see, anon, some single mothers of 5 mixed babies should have their chitty chitty bang bang licenses removed, because they're probably gonna keep up the grind.

>>11842294
>Note that ‘undesirable’ and ‘desirable’ are inherently ideologically defined
Subjectively*
There does not need to be an ideology behind it, aside from one that would be required for this policy to somehow go through.

>Humans are exposed to very different environments across individuals, so most of trait variation is not due to genetic factors but to differences in environment.
Utterly false, the moderate estimate for heritability in the US for example is around the 50% mark.

>It is possible to measure genetic potential directly from genetic markers and what we know from this is that these genetic predictors perform poorly.
Which is why you don't implement based on genetic markers, but based on the phenotype.

>It would take a long time.
Relatively, sure, but not that long.
You would start to see results (minor or not) within a 50 year period.

>a) these traits arise directly from the genome
No, merely that removing all organisms from the reproductive process means that both those caused by environmental and genetic factors get selected against, ergo it doesn't really matter.

>that genetic variants responsible for those traits are present in the population and will disappear upon removal
For intelligence? Absolutely.

> many traits that are detrimental to fitness arise because of de-novo mutations that cannot be selected out
Anon, they would be selected out in the next batch since their ability would be affected by those detrimental mutations.
That's a non-issue.

> recessive genes cannot be selected out when considering phenotype alone.
Since any effects from recessive genes will also be selected against since they will exhibit decreased ability, no, they will.

What's more, if we also track on a lineage and relational basis rather than just a direct ancestry, we can see whether recessive effects take place.

I don’t even know why you guys are even having this conversation. It will never happen. If you only let high iq people breed it would only be quite people left for the most part within a few generations. The fact you think the ultra pc world we live in would let that happen is hilarious. The opposite is happening, they are trying to get rid of white people, and are going to be really confused why the world went to shit and nothing gets invented anymore, and no problems get solved.

>>11842522
>Next you'll be telling us how IQ tests aren't valid because niggers can't understand the cultural context of shapes and patterns lmao.
Oh god don't remind me.

I can't even recall how many time I've pointed out that the "culturally biased" parts of IQ tests have the smallest gaps, while those that aren't considered as such have the largest.

And then had to deal with the proceeding denial.

>>11842601
>I don’t even know why you guys are even having this conversation. It will never happen.
I like entertaining possibilities, however small.

> If you only let high iq people breed it would only be quite people left for the most part within a few generations.
>Implying fewer people is a bad thing

>>11842555
If you were to begin to introduce this in the current political climate and you insisted on highlighting skin tone as a factor you would be crucified. Especially considering automation will be widely adopted in the near future, it's best to not relegate physical tasks to enormous dark-skinned imbeciles but to robots, and to make everyone physically similar to short, metabolically efficient, thin, pretty mulatto-colored people with high aptitudes in different aspects of the intelligence spectrum. Introducing significant physical differences is a recipe for conflict when they're practically unnecessary with modern technology

>>11842631
>pretty mulatto-colored people
>different aspects of the intelligence spectrum.
lmao

>>11842642
I meant mulatto as a unidentifiably homogenous skin tone. The "pretty" was separate.

>>11842653
And I meant that I thought you're just joking, you're not unironically advocating for making the world flat, are you?

I assumed you were since you paired it with multiple intelligences pseudo science.

Just say yes or no as to whether you're being serious, I'm not going to reply either way.

>>11842609
I mis typed. I meant it would only be white people left. There would be literal accusations of genocide if this was done and they wouldn’t even be wrong. If you only let smart people breed the result would be the effective genocide of the black race, and the reduction of the rest to a small fraction of the population. There is 0 chance anyone would let this happen, even among(and perhaps especially) white people, who seem to have a fetish for self extinction for some reason. How they survived this long is a mystery to me honestly(not white myself btw). I’ve never met any other race that hates themselves so much as white people

>>11842631
It should be understood that skin tone is different from race, in order for these phenotypes to be genetically self sufficient each of them must draw on genetic inputs from all different races, which you’d think would make the whole thing far more politically palatable - we’re not some racist nazis trying to exclude or enslave people, we are bringing all peoples together for the goal of evolution and greater achievement!

And, the issues with selecting for physical vigor did occur to me, as more and more labor is done with machines that role is less important, but if such people are given land and resources for sustainable food production it could be of great benefit in the changing climate of the future.

Sure, if you have faith in the system to take care of everyone and actually believe in an automated post scarcity society it’d be ideal to breed all humans down into dependent little children but I’m not in favor of solutions based in magical thinking.

Climate change will inevitably flood much of the planet and adapting humans to make use of flooded territory could be hugely advantageous.
Selecting for intelligence could lead to scientific advances well ahead of what we get in the neoliberal system.
Optimizing for space travel could lead to us reaching the stars in ways that aren’t possible with base human physiology
Etc.

This is about a post racial humanist ideal achieving the best future for all of us, holding it back because of some primitive concern fixated on skin color would be yet another oppression of old world racism

>>11842662
>I mis typed. I meant it would only be white people left.
...Is that supposed to change my answer?

>There is 0 chance anyone would let this happen, even among(and perhaps especially) white people
Oh god no, they wouldn't be caught dead wanting to look racist.
Hell, the mere suggestion that they might be sends them into a collective panic.

> How they survived this long is a mystery to me honestly
Eh, it's mostly a result of decades of indoctrination into a radical conception of equality, mostly as a result from the great advances in sociology made between 1939 and 1945.

>I’ve never met any other race that hates themselves so much as white people
I doubt there ever will be one in the future, either.
I think people will use them as an example of why you should always have some form of group identity in the future, once they're extinct/endangered.

>>11842688
You know the saying book smart but street stupid? I’ve always thought white people are pretty much that. They are somehow extremely smart and extremely stupid at the same time. Smart enough to invent the computer I use to shitpost on 4chan but absolutely 0 self preservation and they’ve let everyone shit all over them for as long as I’ve been alive. I’m pretty sure if any other race had gotten that far ahead tech wise they would have used it to take over the planet. But white dudes just give it all away and spread their cheeks to anyone that wants to fuck with them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad I don’t live as a second class citizen in some white controlled world, I just find it funny and sad that whites don’t seem to have any idea what’s coming their way. Everyone else looks out for themselves and everyone, I mean everyone sees a whole lot of weakness in white people right now. I kinda wonder whose gonna take over though when they are finished which I feel is a foregone conclusion and I worry it will be worse. I don’t really experience much racism contrary to what my peers seem to say and I wonder if that will change under a different regime.

>>11842660
If I wasn't clear enough to make you think I was serious, then I'll do so now and you can consider that my yes or no answer. Generalized intelligence is a fallacy. It could be possible however to select for specific aspects of intelligence like pattern recognition and deductive reasoning and whatnot, which is what I mean when talking about selecting for people with aptitudes for those specific neurological processes. Secondly, selecting for longevity, temperature control, and lack of metabolic stress instead of physical strength, considering technological processes continue as they are eliminating the need for manual labor, while keeping "intelligence(s)" intact, would only be beneficial to humanity as people would live longer lives with less congenital illness or problems in old age. Making their skin tones slightly less pale than the prototypical northern European would also help, because it would decrease melanoma prevalence and retain ability to synthesize vitamin D, and has the side effect of eliminating skin-color based prejudice. This is coming from someone very pale skinned, although what I look like is inconsequential for argument's sake. This all assumes a society where the current climate crisis isn't at play and where technology is suitably advanced is in effect, where taking away the physical strength of the individual is not unduly negative on the population as a whole

>>11842665
I agree with this, but I'm too optimistic for the future to discount that post-scarcity society with dependent little children as impossible, with reservations

>>11842704
>generalized intelligence is a fallacy
Fucking lol. I don’t know what reality you live in, but it certainly isn’t the one I inhabit. And if you even need evidence to prove g, then I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and say you are likely below the average. You might as well start saying we have no evidence for gravity

>>11842719
Anon don't give him attention, you'll just inflate his ego inversely to however many insults you give.
The best choice is to just ignore him, that makes it clear that his post didn't even warrant a reply.

>>11842131
people in jail for life can get kids? How? Do they fuck the other prisoners to produce buttbabies?

>>11842747
take the imaginepill and everything is possible.

>>11842747
Some countries allow conjugal visits for inmates, I saw a thing on Netflix and this old Russian dude who killed like 30 people had a hot 25yo gf and got to bang her every week

>>11842219
>>11842237
Israel can't even handle being criticized so they can't be that intelligent.

>>11842008
>Selectively allowing or even just financially encouraging >100IQ individuals to breed together would, within a few generations, drastically increase scientific progress.
I really doubt it would. IQ might even be detrimental, as it lets you make hasty conclusions instead of seeking more data. Sometimes the dumbest people imaginable score very high on IQ tests.

>>11843061
Anon, we all know IQ is not particularly useful for ranking intelligent people against each other. What it’s for is identifying retards, it’s true that there are many high IQ people who are idiots but it’s false that there are many low IQ people who aren’t idiots.

Even with regression to the mean, selecting from the non-idiot side of the gene pool would rapidly increase the mean of the group over a few years and greatly increase the frequency of genius-level IQ individuals who are more likely to make a meaningful contribution. Yes, there will still be plenty of dumbasses-that’s unavoidable without some inhumane shit like forced sterilization or abortion.

>>11842008
>Is /sci/ a pro-eugenics board?
yes

>>11842008
Everyone can't have >100 IQ

>>11843224
This /sci/ not /pol/.

>>11842037
Its to improve people. So just encourage above mean. Not arbitrary

>>11842131
>Someone actually had a reasonable theory in that the death penalty was an active eugenical tool that was practically ubiquitous for thousands of years
That would be a guy called Alt-Hype.
Unless you mean you've seen it here, in which case they were most likely parroting what they saw there.

>>11842009
fpbp

>>11842577
>smart people cause overpopulation, we should vasectomize them
>you are a monster if you dont want brownies to have 8 children each

/pol/
>THE JEWISH RUN DEEPSTATE CONTROLS THE ENTIRE WORLD AND IS WORKING TIRELESSLY TO DESTROY THE WHITE RACE!!

Also /pol/
>hey guys state enforced eugenics is a great idea!

>>11844648
>>THE JEWISH RUN DEEPSTATE CONTROLS THE ENTIRE WORLD
Controlling some key institutions (like academia, financial institutions and the press for example) would give them extreme influence over the countries in which they are a part of.
Apply this theoretical idea to the sole Hyperpower, America, and that's somewhat true.

>AND IS WORKING TIRELESSLY TO DESTROY THE WHITE RACE!!
Yeah haha, how ridiculous.
If only there were examples of that breaking into the mainstream even, if there were movements calling for abolishment of whiteness itself, formulated by them
How ridiculous lmao, they're clearly just fellow white people and it's also a justifiable position,lets just keep mocking these people and their concerns, that'll stop them.

>>hey guys state enforced eugenics is a great idea!
It's arguably preferable to the status quo, I don't think anyone would argue it's "great".

>>11843089
I mean, forced sterilization was commonplace just 70 years ago, have we really become so cucked as to believe all "people" are truly equal? We put on the facade.

Anyways, just sterilize the bottom 5% in intelligence every generation. Retards aren't hard to detect, and if you get called out on as inhumane, it's pretty easy to justify retards as actively harming society, it wouldn't be any different than sterilizing pedophiles for damaging the lives of children.

>>11842008
Ban all education if you want that. People will only know what they figured out themselves. I don't think that's a very good idea, though.

>>11845365
There is no easy way to tell the difference between a retard who doesn't remember the 'common sense' explanation, and a genius who knows better.

>>11842008
Yes, read the Republic. People only hate eugenics because they know they wouldn't be in the Guardian class or they have a retarded sibling.

>>11845098
If /pol/ was valid and profitable then corporations would take their side.
But it's not so they don't.