/sci/ - Science & Math

Approaching the 9 billion by 2050, I really think overpopulation is one of the world's biggest problems.

>>2935253
I think its a-okay.

I think you should abort fetuses that will develop mental disabilities.

>>2935253
We need pre-natal moral detection so we can euthanize all the people who would grow up to support euthanasia.

we produce food for 12 billion people now, tech up all the chinese farmers and we have 16-18.

overpopulation? bring it on!

i am aware that there are other things than food, but really, is a 60" flatTV worth dying for?

I'm in favor of reducing human suffering. To me that means euthanizing people who are terminally ill as well as abortions, especially early-term ones where the potential kid is unwanted.

People who are against euthanasia seem to feel as if life would be infinite without the mercy-killing -- no, everyone dies.

>>2935264
Could you give me an educated reason for believing that?

This is now a euthanasia thread.

Here is a bit of evidence for the need for eugenics as a substitute for natural selection.

Or maybe just better teachers.

>>2935300
one of your student :P?

>>2935288
>but really, is a 60" flatTV worth dying for?

YES, IT'S FREEEEDOOOOMMM!

>>2935300
What's wrong with the teacher?

>>2935305
NO, I found this picture up here yesterday. The student is right, and the teacher is wrong. It isn't based on pieces of wood, but the number of cuts made. So it would be two cuts and 20 minutes.

If you don't already see the worldwide eugenics program you are very silly indeed.

No, I've got some information about it. Some very interesting vaccines in Africa, an increasing number of scientific papers questioning conventional morality...
I just want to know what the people who are supposed to be smart think about all of this.

Eugenics for the most part is unscentific, and even in attempts to be scientific, it studies social science, which can be manipulated in uncountable ways.

Therefore, if eugenics were true and there are "inferior" races, there'd be a giant shitstorm. Most notably in the Wesern World with the mention of something retarded like IQ tests, which have nearly no value in determining actual intelligence. Or something like school grades, which also have no value in determining actual intelligence.

You'd have the Whites shitting on the Blacks, the Asians on the Whites, the Eastern Euros on the gypsies, the gypsies on the muslims, the muslims on the Jews, the Jews on the Muslims, etc.

tl;dr genocide

I'd just like to clear some misconceptions about evolutionary biology before the threads gets (t)rolling.

Despite what you might intuitively expect, natural selection has not disappeared, the selective pressures have simply changed.

Despite what you might intuitively expect, a healthy population has as many different alleles in its gene pool as possible, instead of a smaller number of "preferable" alleles.

Carry on.

My personal opinion is that we need to start choosing who we sleep with based on the favorability of our combined genes and their yield in our future children.

"Selective breeding" has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

>>2935350
Eugenics is a social policy, not a science. It is based on the science that some heritable traits are more conducive to physical health and mental aptitude than others. Nobody seriously disputes that there is at least a hereditary component to these things.

Eugenics does not inherently involve any sort of race-based judgements. Even if the eugenicist might conclude that, for instance, whites have better cardiovascular health than blacks, race would only be acting as a proxy for the genes themselves. With the improvement of DNA sequencing technology, I think the goal would be to get away from simplifications like race and concentrate on weeding undeniably deleterious genes out of the population and promoting those that seem to offer benefit.

eugenics is a fucking joke.

in the days of gene manipulation and future cybernetic enchancements/organ growing it's nothing but a vestige of racism.

If we even did know what every gene did for a specific result, not being able to breed would be detrimental to our species.

save the planet, kill clowns

>>2935253 What is 4chan's stance on eugenics? Educated arguments please. No mudslinging.
Non-scientists are blind to the problems of pure-breeds. They have naive concepts about "good genes" and "bad genes" that ignore complex interactions and problems. Ironically, a mere farmer or breeder who has never seen a university from inside may possess much better knowledge on that matter than a sociology professor or renowned philosopher. Even fundamental concepts like "health" and "sickness" are commonly misunderstood. People think of the world as a fairy tale with clear good and evil. Biologists know it better.

Look up monoculture, inbreeding depression, the connection between sickle-cell disease and malaria etc. Eugenics has some potential, but one needs to keep the massive disadvantages in mind.

>>2935411
> implying having kids is a human right

>>2935428
who's going to stop people? the government? go ahead and try, watch how fast the said country dissolves in a revolution

>>2935425
Why is it better people have sex at random

>>2935429
> yfw nazi germany

Eugenics is a great way to prevent retards and stupid people from being born/reproducing, I'm all for it!

say no!

>>2935434
mfw when the entire world took a shit on germany
< yfw when eugenics was never truly implemented in that country besides labs and camps that most people never went to

>>2935430
Sex is about mixing genes instead of creating identical clones. This strategy creates a stable and versatile population which is - as a whole - resistant to most diseases and environmental influences.

So when you have a monoculture crop that is resistant to most diseases, it may be highly productive. However, if one disease strikes successfully, then it threatens to destroy the entire population. This isn't worth the risk in most cases, if you ask me.

That also means that if one wanted to destroy the world, the best way is to engineer a disease that targets crops. Our food production is dangerously uniform in regards to genetical versatility.

>>2935425
You're attacking a straw man by claiming that eugenics inherently promotes a monoculture. There could be "good genes" and "bad genes" without there being so few "good genes" that inbreeding results. In fact, eugenics could (in theory) promote some degree of mixing between populations with relatively dissimilar genes.

There are some genes that are what I would call "bad." Many have resulted from fairly recent, sporadic mutations and there's no reason to suspect positive selection. There's no reason to think that a random mutation should be good, and if it causes a recognizable syndrome, I'd say that's good empirical evidence that it's simply deleterious. More complex situations with nuanced benefits are of course possible, but there's no reason to suspect they're common and I wouldn't ask someone to live with a painful, debilitating or disfiguring disease on the theory that there may be, for instance, some sort of subtle heterozygote advantage.

Necessary to control the population boom and to ensure dumlocks aren't around.

>>2935454
Eugenics necessarily promotes monoculture to some degree since it intends to reduce or eliminate the "bad genes". That is no straw men, that is the very heart of eugenics.

Take sickle-cells for example. A person who does not know that this disease increases the resistance to malaria would probably strongly advocate to eliminate it.

Eugenics: The idea that one ideologies necessarily arbitrary standards of who should mate and who should not will produce a better humanity.

Many, many problems with Eugenics. You are selecting traits that are not more fit, by definition, in the hope that in a few generations they will turn out to be more fit. You are putting humanity through an artificially narrow population cataract, using artificial to determine targets for an artificially effective selective scythe.

By the time we have the genetic knowledge and medical technology to actually make this work, it will be obsolete, and we will be able to simply alter any individual as they please.

>>2935425
>Eugenics has some potential, but one needs to keep the massive disadvantages in mind.
Not disadvantages, but dangers.
Properly implemented, it would definitely make everything better.
For example: aborting children with Down's would have no significant downsides.
Breeding for mathematical ability could result in geniuses, but also probably in insanities.
In before someone who doesn't know anything comes up with their "lol u can't breed for mathematical ability".

>>2935460 By the time we have the genetic knowledge and medical technology to actually make this work, it will be obsolete, and we will be able to simply alter any individual as they please.

Yes, I place very high hopes into that. Although it may be dangerous. Think of "BioShock" - they did not regulate the distribution of a substance that is initially of great benefit, but deteriorating in the long term. In the end the whole society went to hell.

>>2935466 For example: aborting children with Down's would have no significant downsides.
Unless humanity is ravaged by a plague that feeds on certain neurotransmitters that certain mentally disabled might lack. The problem is, the diseases of the past do not accurately predict the environmental factors of the future.

>>2935448

Why can't you have like 3 strains on humans.

If a disease affects one then you can use the resistant groups to create cure, derp, problem solved.

>>2935480

lol u think that's possible

>that's what you actually believe

>>2935472

One would imagine that only coercion could force everyone to alter their DNA in the same few ways.

The level of technology I am referring to is an ability to predict the changes on an individual from any particular set of changes to it's DNA. So a decent prediction of an adults appearance, aptitudes and temperament from it's DNA, and a decent capacity to predict how changes to this as an adult would cause them to develop differently.

If we could do that, any mistakes would only a generation of discomfort or disability for individuals, at most. And more likely only a few months, as the same medical technology could be used to detect and fix the problems.

Whereas with eugenics you must wait several generations, human generations mind, so several decades, and even then you might be missing something that could prove fatal down the line. Like big dogs with heart problems. Nature selects against any dogs that are too big for their hearts, or vice-versa. Humans only select for the things we can see, and that is gross dog size.

>>2935462
That's the example I had in mind when I mentioned "heterozygote advantage." I'm not denying that there can be heterozygote advantage in some cases, I just deny that it's widespread among alleles that cause genetic disease. If you read my post carefully, you could detect my reasoning for this belief.

Sickle-cell has become a toy example for this sort of thing precisely because it's so widespread, and it's so widespread precisely because the heterozygous case has an advantage. In other words, regarding it as a typical example is a form of selection bias.

More typical are, for instance, the many mutations that cause mucopolysaccaridosis.

>>2935484
Why can't you have like 3 strains on humans. If a disease affects one then you can use the resistant groups to create cure, derp, problem solved.
Unless it affects all three, then we are screwed. That is what genetical versatility is for. Even a disease that would kill off billions of genetically different beings would still leave many relatively or completely unaffected.

>>2935484

Why not have countless strains of humans?

If a disease affects n strains, the n strains who remain somewhat resistant, and the n strains that are totally resistant, will be able to seamlessly outperform the affected strains in fitness terms, interbreeding and replacing them without issue.

>implying this isn't now

>>2935493
Most used Plasmids because of their utility. And those who did not were virtually defenseless against the Splicers.

>>2935480
Downies can't breed.
I picked them as a perfect example, because they are a perfect example.
Sure, diseases could affect only particular strains of "purebreed" humans, but if we kept several specialized strains, we could still make cross-breeds across them.
We could even have a randomly bred "resistant to everything" genetic clusterfuck, just in case of emergency. They would probably be dumb and ugly, though.
Surely beats having only semi-randomly breeding hordes. Eugenics would defeat creationism.

If you section off one group of the population and let them breed exclusively, inbreeding is imminent.

Eugenics is inherently flawed.

For all the people who keep touting diversity as a necessary requirement can you please explain how japanese people are so healthy?

Again, these problems suggest that we should be looking for the best matches for our own offspring. While sterilization need not be an issue yet, we can certainly breed for certain traits to produce optimized strains of human.

>>2935509

That's fine in videogame land.

In real life you won't get superpowers.

We'll be talking about people getting 'genetic service packs' that are vetted by multiple independent agencies before release, that most people won't get until the first few have had them without issue for several months or years, and that will pretty much just shave off the rough edges of our genome.

>>2935516
Because they are nearly vegetarian and they don't eat much saturated fats.

>>2935516

A population of tens of millions with significant variation within?

The population squeeze that a eugenics program would simulate would be far, far narrower than that. We'd be looking at pacific island levels, not major island nation levels.

>>2935513
Nope, your straw man is inherently flawed.

Furthermore, the group size needed to represent the preponderance of human genetic diversity is smaller than you might think. The species just isn't that diverse to begin with.

You could exclude all people who are carriers of identified harmful mutations and still have plenty of people (the majority of humanity) left to represent all the diversity of the gene-pool as far as it goes.

>>2935532
>A population of tens of millions with significant variation within?
USA is far more varied, yet far less healthy.
>>2935513
>assuming we have to breed only a single group

>>2935532

so you're implying it's impossible to implement a eugenics program on a nationwide basis?

>>2935535

But eugenics isn't just a minimal exercise. If you're saying you'd just identify a handful of bad genes and remove them, and do nothing more, then fine, you'd likely increase the average health gradually over a few generations. At the cost of having to enforce these reproductive laws on the whole population so nobody can cheat the system.

>>2935522 In real life you won't get superpowers.
Increased Stamina? Intelligence? Sensorical perception? Just think of how popular drugs are, even those who only affect the mood.

It has abolutely no purpose.

>>2935541

I'm saying when you try to institute a maximal eugenics program, you will necessarily put the population through a tiny population cataract.

If you're just picking the worst 10% (by whose standards?) and saying you can't breed, the problem is that you will only increase matters very gradually and uncertainly.

And the final, ultimate problem with the whole thing is that you are selecting traits that would not normally be fit to reproduce. If they were fit in this way, you wouldn't need eugenics to do it.

I think these people saying diversity is penultimate to a successful population are retarded. As long as you don't breed two people who are closer than like 5 generations of separation, I bet you no effect of inbreeding will ever be displayed.

>>2935550

I mean, by the time genetic knowledge and medical technology gets to the point you can do this, the 'haves' will only be a generation ahead of the 'have-nots' in terms of the kind of genetic enhancements they can afford. And I'm talking computer technology generations here, so 2 years at the most. And it's the 'haves' who will be doing the beta-testing on these enhancements, so they won't have the same kind of reliable product. And no one generation of enhancement will be orders of magnitude better than the next.

The only way to prevent this is for the current power structures to enforce an artificial scarcity over the means of genetic manipulation. Then you would get GATACCA style nonsense.

Eugenics will lead to apovrishment of genetic diversity, leading to raging and super lethal pandemics.

What you, what we see as a desirable genetic trait may be useless against virii ... example : some black africans developed are naturally immune against AIDS.

>>2935567 As long as you don't breed two people who are closer than like 5 generations of separation, I bet you no effect of inbreeding will ever be displayed.
That is a common misconception. Important are the genes, not the relationship. A healthy brother mating with his healthy sister is less risky than two completely different people with hereditary diseases reproducing. The reason why incest is more prone to result in disabilities is that the probability of combining disadvantageous recessive traits is increased. Over all cases, that means - that does say nothing about the individual case.

>>2935547
>At the cost of having to enforce these reproductive laws on the whole population so nobody can cheat the system.
As if it was so hard...
-child is conceived
-test child for bad genes
-bad genes found -> abort
-fine -> birth
Or even just
-test child after birth
-only good genes -> financial support
Sure, it would be "immoral" and "not what God intended", but that's it. Parents would be encouraged to use tax-financed selection programs instead of random fucking and bringing the child up just because of a mistake.

>>2935547
You seem to be arguing "If you do X to an absurd degree, it is harmful, therefore X is inherently bad" where X is eugenics. Meanwhile I'm arguing that a careful and judicious implementation of eugenics could serve the public interest and mitigate human suffering.

As for the cost of implementation, there are several ways to lessen the burden. One is just to make it a voluntary tax-credit program. That is, to claim a child for tax purposes, that child must be born under circumstances X, Y and Z where those are designed to screen out the targeted genetic diseases. The creation of a eugenics program can also be an opportunity to exercise some level of population control, which is a connected collateral issue.

I am for controlling the population of Blacks, Arabs, East Indians and Hispanics.

These groups are breeding too fast for my liking, they have low IQs and have cultures that are terrible.

with eugenics i think you'd have to be very careful to not shrink your gene pool too much. genetic variability is GOOD

>>2935582

that would be cool, in essence every kid is owned by the government. kinda reminds me of ender's game

>>2935577
Your argument about genetic diversity is just plain wrong. It is factually incorrect. Please stop.

It is possible to breed from a population consisting of just 0.5% of the total on Earth without losing any genetic diversity. Your conception that every single person, or even the majority of people, are necessary to the genetic constitution of the population is WRONG.

only enforceable in a form of government where everyone is dependent on it for living

>>2935581

This is why I am talking about minimal and maximal eugenics. IE, eugenics away from bad genes and eugenics towards good genes.

Minimal has the problems of difficult enforcement, of limited results, and of a narrow window where it is useful. By the time minimal eugenics would pay off, it is likely that we will be at the designer baby stage, which is different enough from traditional eugenics that it can't be placed under the same banner.

Maximal has the problem of arbitrary standards, of selecting for traits that would not naturally be successful, of uncertain results, hidden consequences, of being very difficult and expensive to enforce, and that same narrow window of utility.

I say that the minimal exercise is an excessive exercise of power over individuals, and builds the kind of structures that would lead to an artificial scarcity of genetic manipulation technology, and would therefore ruin the next generation of human improvement. And maximal is bad for obvious reasons.

>>2935615
You haven't specifically indicated how my proposed plan would be difficult to enforce. It would seem to be trivial to enforce, since the parents have to claim the child if they want the credit. Implementation in earnest relies on cheap sequencing, but the cost of that is falling all the time and there are revolutionary leaps on the horizon (e.g. sequencing by passing the DNA molecule through a sensor equipped nano-pore, which could reduce the cost to the $50 - $100 range and is under very heavy development)

>>2935628

I don't mean that it would be difficult to enforce in the sense of, the apparatus would be expensive or complicated. I mean that a significant proportion of citizens would just not play ball. And it would be difficult to get agreement on the criteria.

And, though we can discount this for the purposes of a hypothetical, the plan going forward in the first place seems like it would take a lot of political wrangling.

Can someone give me one good reason why eugenics suck (except moral issues...)?
In my opinion it doesn't have anything to do with racism. Imagine that we would sterilize a few generations of people that do have serious health problems and are dependent of the health care system and drugs.Only after a few generations, the population would be healthier by a significant amount.
1. Less money spent in health care
2. Less suffering
3. Less productive time spent to take care of retarded people
4. No human casualties. Come on, I know everyone is against human rights restrictions, but this is not a big deal anyway. People in china do that too in some sense, to control the population.
5. Far better than becoming a race of a mixture of billions and billions of recessive diseases and solving it later with gene therapy. Genes aren't that simple, you never know what you actually do by modifying a gene. Each person can be completely different.


So seriously, any good reasons why not?

>>2935709 Can someone give me one good reason why eugenics suck (except moral issues...)? [...] Only after a few generations, the population would be healthier by a significant amount.
We already explained that. But if you don't believe it, just try it for yourself: Plant a field with genetically engineered crops in monoculture, and see what comes from it.

>>2935709

I don't think anyone in this thread has even mentioned moral issues.

And my main points have been; in it's minimal form it wouldn't be that effective that fast; in it's maximal form it wouldn't be reliably effective, and it would be to arbitrary standards that are not fit in nature.

>>2935725
Could you please link to the post where it was explained as I don't feel like reading it all over again? Thanks

>>2935752

Not the guy you're responding to, but;

>>2935493
>>2935460

Would probably be my main two posts here.

>>2935725
That's just a false analogy. Even the most extreme forms of eugenics wouldn't yield people as similar as those plants in the field.

You fail argumentation.

Why bother? All the bonuses are in the future and all the costs are right now. I don't live in the future. don't give a FUCK about the future. I DO give a FUCK about what my tax dosh is spent on. I don't want it spent on something that doesn't benefit me in any way whatsoever, is of questionable effectiveness and likely pointless.

The only people who suffer because we aren't using eugenics are the brown people in the space of AIDS who die to support western society and I sure as hell don't give not a SINGLE SHIT about them.

>>2935780

There are other issues.

The main one being, we are selecting for traits that would not normally be successful.

>>2935594
>in essence every kid is owned by the government
Government pays for kids even now.
With everyone's money.
It should have the right to demand high quality people.
>>2935781
That's a very short term thinking.
>>2935727
>in it's minimal form it wouldn't be that effective that fast;
No retards. Not very effective (only a small percentage), but very simple and nearly 100% reliable.
>in it's maximal form it wouldn't be reliably effective, and it would be to arbitrary standards that are not fit in nature.
The first part is valid, but
>it would be to arbitrary standards that are not fit in nature
is pretty much meaningless. Nature's standards are just as arbitrary.
>>2935812
They wouldn't be successful only because of current retarded genetic "standards".
Like with peacocks evolving to be as colorful as possible.

>>2935253
op is a fag

>>2935887
>It should have the right to demand high quality people.
No it shouldn't. The government doesn't have the right to "demand" anything from the people that they don't agree to. Really we should demand high quality people in government.