/sci/ - Science & Math

idiocracy.jpeg

Feels inferior man

Gauss vs Regular human brain vs Gorilla

Because the people who are in to eugenics are never the people with god tier brains.

>>4708274
>female
>regular human brain

0/10

>>4708269

Why not? Isn't it the next logical step for a species that can understand evolution?

>>4708274
begauss bigger is better

>>4708275

This better?

>>4708276
It's funny because if you understood evolution you would understand why eugenics is bad.

>>4708279

I disagree and I do understand evolution.

Humans are not like other animals.

>>4708281

Not just size. Its mostly about the increased folds which make for a lot more surface area.

Encephalization Quotient
Neoteny
Gyrae
Amount of Folds
Total Neurons and Dendritic Growth / Regen
Information Absorption
THE CRITICAL PERIOD FOR LEARNING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Human_intelligence

Because eugenics isn't about improving human beings, it's about reproductive control.

If eugenicists really wanted to improve mankind, they'd support voluntary, commercialized genetic engineering. It accomplishes changes in one generation that eugenics takes thousands to.

The only meaningful difference is, genetic engineering does not require an authoritarian government exerting total control over sexual reproduction, which is what eugenicists actually want.

>>4708252

H...Holy fuck.

I can't see anything but gyrae and gyrae...everywhere. So developed. Mother of God.

I can't even see the cerebellum or anything else...

>>4708318

That technology does not exist.

We know that we could raise the average IQ about 15 points in 200 years. Sure thats a long time but it seems like a good thing to do while we wait. Eugenics will also clear up most crime and poverty instantaneously, as every child will be given a good home to grow up in with capable parents and adequate resources.

>>4708332


Increase the average by 15 points.

Ashkenazi Jews already have an average of 115.

http://www.economist.com/node/4032638

<0.6% of the population

~35% of the Nobel Prizes
~25% of total Turing Awards
>50% of all worldwide world chess champions.

Von Neumann, Einstein, William Sidis, Turing, Godel...any. Most certainly either European or Jewish.

>>4708332
>That technology does not exist.
Gene therapy does not exist?

GET THE FUCK OUT.

>>4708269
>Because the people who are in to eugenics are never the people with god tier brains.

Nonsense. Clearly u lack knowledge of eugenics history. I advice u to read Wiki and then read Richard Lynn's book on the topic. It has an excellent history coverage. Many very bright minds were positive about eugenics, which was, btw, invented by a very, very bright mind: Francis Galton (polymath).

>>4708252
Because moralfags outnumber us

The reason being so, as the average nationally incrases, so does the frequency of the occurence of genius.

In blacks with the national average being 85 for African-Americans, IQ > 140 is <0.001%

In whites, with the average being 100, a 15 points increase (standard deviation) the rarity of IQ > 140 its 1/ 261, which is MUCH more than 0.001%

Now, lets add another 15 points, and you have a race that, due to congential breeding and the extreme genetic effects of alleles, as well as having an intellectual culture, push intellectual boundaries.

Its no coincidence that the greatest scientific minds currently and of all time have MOSTLY ALL BEEN JEWISH!

>>4708332
>every child will be given a good home to grow up in with capable parents and adequate resources
lol
enjoy having literally ten times as many retirees as workers in two generations while africa continues to mass produce starving 67-iq resource sinks
or do you explicitly endorse genocide rather than just implicitly?

>>4708338

Exactly. Can you imagine if the average for all 300 million Americans was suddenly 115? There would be so many highly developed minds working on science and technology. It would be fucking beautiful.

And the coolest thing is that we have everything we need to actually start this right now.

To eugenic supporters out there, I ask you this.

Are you ready, and willing, to be euthanized should you be deemed unfit?

>>4708295
Yes, bigger is better. Brain size as measured with brain scans correlate with measured IQ @ .40, 0.44 correlated for reliability.

Cite: WHOLE BRAIN SIZE AND GENERAL MENTAL ABILITY: A REVIEW

J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON
C. DAVISON ANKNEY

>>4708351

The fertility rate doesnt have to go down. On the contrary, we could raise it substantially.

The basic problem we have is that those with the means to have big families only have a few children on average, and those who do not have the means tend to have large families. By fixing this we would be practicing eugenics, and at the same time giving children better homes.

I do not endorse killing anyone.

>>4708318
U have crazy ideas about what eugenicists thought and think.

What eugenicists actually want is.. to improve the genepool. That is what "eugenics" means in greek: good (=eu) genes.

Ofc, when eugenics was invented some >100 years ago, there was no modern gene technology. Eugenics is much easier now a days. It will very soon be very easy. In fact, eugenics thrives today already, we just don't call it by its right name. E.g. foetal screening.

>>4708332
Technology will very soon (our life time) exist to increase intelligence by many points each generation. When the power of genome wide association studies (GWAS) goes up, we will be able to discover the genes for intelligence. There are many such genes with a very little effect each of them. The study will need very high power to detect them.

Etc.: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/05/five-years-of-gwas-discovery.html

>>4708340

You cant even identify more than a few genes that influence intelligence.

>>4708356

Stop strawmaning eugenics.

We dont support ANYONE being euthanized.

>>4708338
Ashkenazi intelligence is in the 110-115 range. 115 being the upper estimate. In any case, it is substantially higher than white average and somewhat higher than east asian average. Richard Lynn wrote a book about it recently, where he also discusses the cause of their higher intelligence, and whether it is partly genetic. Probably is. I haven't been able to find the ebook anywhere yet. I will read it when i do.

>>4708379
lets overexpress those genes then.

>>4708332

>That technology does not exist.

It is so close that to throw away freedom and democracy and turn our society into a hellish dystopia just to make marginal gains "while we wait" is nonsense.

>We know that we could raise the average IQ about 15 points in 200 years.

We are already genetically engineering livestock. It is a short jump from there to humans. We will have genetic engineering within a decade or two.

>"Sure thats a long time but it seems like a good thing to do while we wait."

No, because the changes made to the powers of the government in order to facilitate eugenics "while we wait" would be extremely difficult to remove and frightening for a bunch of reasons.

>"Eugenics will also clear up most crime and poverty instantaneously, as every child will be given a good home to grow up in with capable parents and adequate resources."

Unless you're deemed unfit, in which case you're killed.

>>4708379

>You cant even identify more than a few genes that influence intelligence.

So we maximize the few we know of.

>>4708354
Many americans are not at 100. US blacks average 85. Latinos somewhere in between whites and US blacks. But surely, it will help a lot with many things, including crime. Altho, it shud be noted, crime is not particularly strongly linked to intelligence sitting at -.20. This is enough that it appears readily when comparing US blacks and whites, ofc. (And east asians, even tho they 'only' average 105)

>>4708393

Phenotypic selection or traditional eugenics would be orders of magnitude more efficient and less risky at the moment.

>>4708402
Bad idea. Those we know of have negative 'side-effects'. Wait until the studies have sufficient power, as like i wrote in >>4708378

>>4708378

And very soon (around 1986 or 87) we will all be flying to work in hovering cars.

>>4708368

>U have crazy ideas about what eugenicists thought and think.

No, I am outing them for what they are, whether they realize it themselves or no.

>What eugenicists actually want is.. to improve the genepool. That is what "eugenics" means in greek: good (=eu) genes.

And the best way to do this is by genetic engineering. That is what you'd support if you actually wanted to improve the gene pool.

What you want is to control who is able to reproduce, as it appeals to you as a form of social justice; You imagine that as an especially intelligent person (whether you are in reality or not) that you'd be paired with a beautiful woman that would have no choice but to reproduce with you.

>>4708399

>Strawman
>Intelligence is not as easily quantified as bodymass, more genes involved too
>I understand your point
>Strawman again, eugenicists are not nazis, we dont want anyone to be euthanized.

>>4708407
>Phenotypic selection or traditional eugenics would be orders of magnitude more efficient and less risky at the moment.

Yes. Since we also know that intelligence is very heritable (~0.8 at adulthood), we effectively have knowledge about which genes are good for intelligence, even tho we can't pinpoint them exactly yet.

Besides, the genotypic intelligence is decreasing currently and have been for a number of years (perhaps as much as 150ish). Clearly, we shud do something about this. It does not bode well for society to decrease genotypic intelligence and be increasingly intelligence requiring/meritocratic.

I believe Nurture has a bigger impact on intelligence than nature, at least outside of the extremes of the IQ bell curve (The mentally handicapped, and the geniuses.)

Improving our educational teaching methods would benefit the center of the bell curve directly, while being a much feasible plan in the short run, and with a smarter average citizen, future plans to improve intelligence are much more likely to be accepted.

My 2 cents.

>>4708418
>No, I am outing them for what they are, whether they realize it themselves or no.

U shud stop with the psychologizing. It serves no purpose in rational discussions.

>And the best way to do this is by genetic engineering. That is what you'd support if you actually wanted to improve the gene pool.

I can't speak for every eugenicist, but i wholeheartedly support genetic engineering, which is what eugenics is anyway, just in a haphazard kind of way; it literally just is artificial selection on humans.

>>4708423

Exactly!!!!

So many people fail to understand that genotypic intelligence has been going down. They all look at the flynn effect and go full retard.

Im proud of you for understanding this shit bro.

>>4708420
>>>Intelligence is not as easily quantified as bodymass, more genes involved too

Not sure that it has more genes involved.. Intelligence is very similar to height. Height is about equally heritable. Height is just easier to measure, but not that much. Modern IQ testing is quite good.

>>4708431

>"i wholeheartedly support genetic engineering, which is what eugenics is anyway, just in a haphazard kind of way; it literally just is artificial selection on humans."

Don't speak of them interchangeably. In terms of the impacts on human freedom they are very very different things.

>>4708425
>I believe Nurture has a bigger impact on intelligence than nature, at least outside of the extremes of the IQ bell curve (The mentally handicapped, and the geniuses.)

I'm sorry, but u have been misled. The evidence is very clear on this matter. All psychometricians agree about this, even the leftist ones who are race denialists/similar.

>Improving our educational teaching methods would benefit the center of the bell curve directly, while being a much feasible plan in the short run, and with a smarter average citizen, future plans to improve intelligence are much more likely to be accepted.

There is no known way to increase intelligence except for better genes. It is actually interesting since most nurture effect on intelligence is not from shared environment (i.e. shared with siblings) but non-shared environment. No one knows which effect this is. Teachers maybe? Exposure to complex stimuli during aging? We don't know yet. But the effect is rather small compared with the genetic effect.

>>4708425

The sick thing is that better education usually steepens the dysgenics breeding patterns.

It makes sense, if every child is give an equal opportunity to learn, we do a great job of sorting them into social class. Social class eventually has a lot to do with fertility rates.

Unless we are indocronating students into a worldview that is pro-eugenics (which I dont necessarily have a problem with), you are doing more harm than good with education.

>>4708442
>Don't speak of them interchangeably. In terms of the impacts on human freedom they are very very different things.

Eugenics in itself has no impacts on human freedom. There are many possible (and actual!) eugenical practices that are wholly free. The reason they work is that parents share the same interests as eugenicists, just for their own children. That is, parents want smart, healthy, nice children. Eugenicists want smart, healthy, nice people.

>>4708453
>The sick thing is that better education usually steepens the dysgenics breeding patterns.

While this is true, i don't consider it sufficient reason to avoid redistribution of wealth to some degree. Other considerations are more important to me. I rather want to combat the dysgenetic problems created in some other way.

>>4708442

We could have a eugenics program in america right now and you wouldn't be noticeably less free than you already are.

>Make abortions free and easily accessable
>Give extremely large tax breaks for rich/educated people to have more children

Thats all you would have to do to make IQ and fertility have a positive correlation.

No gas chambers neccissary.

>>4708452

>I'm sorry, but u have been misled. The evidence is very clear on this matter. All psychometricians agree about this, even the leftist ones who are race denialists/similar.

Are you saying a genius growing up in a shitty district of Detroit will perform better than an average person raised in an upper-middle class household?

Because if you are, I'm inclined to disregard your argument.

>>4708434
It seems obvious. Since we know from history that smarter people have been getting fewer children for a long time (perhaps 150 years), and intelligence is very heritable (or just a bit heritable, that is enough), the genotypic intelligence must decrease if there are no other factors involved. (However slowly.)

It follows then that if the Flynn effect is a 'real' increase in intelligence, it is entirely nurture-based or, it isn't 'real' and thus is spurious in some way (e.g. by being a non-Jensen effect / not g-loaded).

>>4708472
>Give extremely large tax breaks for rich/educated people to have more children

Is probably a bad idea, given current US situation. Rather, u cud give rich people a fine if they fail to have children. That's interesting, but probably not a good idea either.

Singapore had (for a time IIRC) state-sponsored dating for graduate students. The idea being that they wud meet, pair up, and have children. :P There are many ways to do positive eugenics.

>>4708478
>Are you saying a genius growing up in a shitty district of Detroit will perform better than an average person raised in an upper-middle class household?

I did not say anything of that sort. I didn't even use the word "perform". I wrote precise (typos excluded) what i meant to say.

U were making claims about the heritability of intelligence, and u were making wrong claims. Hence, i corrected u. Twin studies have long demonstrated that it is genetics and a bit of nurture that is responsible for a particular person's intelligence level.

This thread reeks of pseudo-intellectual edgy teen bullshit.

>>4708501
Some kind of elaboration is necessary.

>>4708487

It essentially would be.

Im thinking of a huge base line tax, like 70%, and you get 10% off per child.

Obviously you get a break if you can prove you are infertile.

Something along those lines.

This would also serve to break up large concentrations of wealth. Its an ingenious way of indirect redistribution I think. It could even be disguised and sold that way to the left who hate the idea of eugenics.

>>4708500

And yet, that bit is crucial.

>>4708507

What is overpopulation?

>>4708500

>and a bit of nurture

Intelligence is meaningless if you lack the proper tools to express your ideas.

Furthermore, education provides us with access to the works of thousands before us. Shoulders of Giants and all that jazz.

I'd say Nurture is far more than just "a bit".

>>4708511

Not our concern in America. We live in a sparsely populated country and we have a massive surplus of food. We would be fine with a fertility rate that is triple what it is now. This country could support 1.5 billion easily.

Within the century we'll be rewriting our genomes directly. Don't bother with this eugenics shit.

>>4708523

We dont even have flying cars yet

>>4708519

>we have a massive surplus of food

inb4 Violent Simians

>>4708531

Flying cars are a security nightmare.

They were and will always be a pipe dream.

>>4708507
I don't think anything of that sort is necessary. I rather just wait for the genomic revolution to finish and personal genetic engineering to get into effect. Parents will automatically select for good zygotes to implant. This will happen soon unless laws make it illegal. When we figure out which genes are responsible for what, even if only in broad strokes, then it is just a matter of extracting eggs and sperm from two people, letting them become zygotes (fertilized eggs), letting the zygotes divide a bit, take one of them and sequence it. Choose the one with the best genes to our knowledge. The more zygotes to choose between, the larger differences can be made in 1 generation.

The above is how i think eugenics will be in the future. Pretty much nothing has to change besides what is already changing itself. There is a strong market desire. Even if the state makes it illegal (and some states will), people will do it. After all, there is no way to detect it. It literally are their own genes taken from their own bodies.

With time, the states that make it illegal will suffer competitive disadvantage.

>>4708531

>We dont even have flying cars yet

>Flying cars always been a pipedream
>Compare it to real technology

>http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6040/348.abstract

>>4708508
>And yet, that bit is crucial.

Only crucial in so far as nutrition goes and lack of serious misconduct. Serious malnutrition is pretty rare in the western world. Pretty much unheard of. Some people may ofc lack a particular vitamin or something like that, but almost no one dies of hunger.

>>4708518
>Intelligence is meaningless if you lack the proper tools to express your ideas.
>Furthermore, education provides us with access to the works of thousands before us. Shoulders of Giants and all that jazz.
>I'd say Nurture is far more than just "a bit".

U are not talking about what i am talking about. I don't even know if it means anything to say something like "Intelligence is meaningless if you lack the proper tools to express your ideas". It sounds like the kind of thing that the continental people say on /lit/.

My comment about nurture and a bit is about the heritability of intelligence, not whatever u're talking about.

>>4708555
Thanks, that is pretty cool! I didn't know that was possible yet.

You guys do understand that selecting and prioritizing certain zygotes over others without fully understanding their complete genetic payload is really risky, right?

>"Hey, this gene has been found to rise IQ by 15 points, let's give it to everyone"

20 years later.

>"Turns out that gene, in combination with these 3 others also cause propensity to brain cancer."

Not to mention gene pool homogenization would make the human race more prone to epidemics.

>>4708581

15 IQ points means that quarantine and curing becomes ridiculously easy.

>>4708559

>"Intelligence is meaningless if you lack the proper tools to express your ideas"

That is really straightforward; if you cant communicate your discoveries to other people in a way they can understand you, it doesn't matter if you're the greatest genius that has ever lived, because you contribute nothing in the greater scheme of things.

>>4708581
>>4708587
There is no such gene that increases for 15 points without seriously affecting health. I specifically told people not to use potential genes that give a lot of intelligence. Such genes are trade off genes. Why do u think the Ashkenazi have so many genetic diseases? They traded health for intelligence.

There are at least a few known diseases that increase intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

>>4708550
Apparently, what i described has a name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprogenetics

>>4708599

You're missing the point.

The point is, without full knowledge of what you're mix and matching gene-wise, mistakes and surprises are bound to happen.

if everyone was a genius though, how would capitalism work? There'd be no one left to scam or do the shit jobs.

We don't need a population of scientist. We only need a couple dozen really really good ones.

>>4708615
>>4708615

This. Increasing avg. IQ by 15 points also means increasing frequency of generating people with IQ > 140, 170 compared to a society with an IQ avg. of like 80.

BY A FUCKING LOT.

>>4708614

Capitalism would work much better. More intelligent consumers would have demand for better and more efficient, well made goods. Also, there is nothing saying that high IQ people cant do manual labor, I promise you that there is a person in China with a genius level IQ working in a factory as we speak.

>4708506

i agree brutha

these fools think that the only important trait is intelligence

>>4708610
>The point is, without full knowledge of what you're mix and matching gene-wise, mistakes and surprises are bound to happen.

If that was the point, then just write it the next time.

This is no big deal. Surprises already happen. We are just making sure that some desirable things also happen.

>>4708620
One can calculate it rather easily. Suppose we are looking at >130 people. Chance of that given mean=100, sd=15 is 0.022750132.

With mean=115 it is 0.15865525.

Increase ≈ 700%.

>>4708550
With a huge increase in the number of smart people, it won't take long for us to invent proper robots to handle such labor. Besides, with 3D printing getting big, there will be even less use for fysical low cost labor.

>>4708695
That was the ratio. ≈ 600 is the increase.

>>4708581

Going full retard here but if you have a gene that does something and combine it with another, it does something else?

>>4708608

Yes, it is called stuffing into the box all those baby pokemon without perfect IVs

>>4708332
>We know that we could raise the average IQ about 15 points in 200 years.
We could raise the average IQ about 30 points in one or two years, by killing everyone with a sub-130 IQ.

>>4708767
We're really talking about the same thing. It's just whether you do it before or after they're born.

>>4708775
>>4708767

Thank god you morons aren't actually in control of a nation.

Christ, even Mendel knew more about genetics than you basement Bene Gesserit.

>>4708786
...and where did I say I thought it was a good idea?

It wasn't until after reading your post that I actually believed there are people so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to live.

>>4708332

>implying IQ tests aren't normalised in order to make 100 the average every time.

>>4708794

>nuh uh i just didn't type the smart things i could have.

alright, bud. have it your way.

We can't raise average IQ

it will always be 100

what we can do is raise average intelligence

>>4708767

I mean in a different way. Even if you did that the children of the 130 group would regress to the mean. The average IQ would move well below the 130 mark.

It takes time to truly change the average, even under strong selective pressure.

Your selective pressure would clearly be too strong as there wouldnt be enough people around to do shit.

>>4708827
>there wouldnt be enough people around to do shit.
With technology at this point, the people under 130 are more burden than help.

For instance, they vote.

>>4708835

Lol bro we need a lot of people to make shit. Sure there is a lot of dead weight but not as much as you think. Even the Chinese boy who helped make the rubber tip on your pencil contributed in a small way.

>>4708835

> I failed economics.

>>4708344

Basically this.

forced evolution? too slow

>People believing IQ is the be all and end all of human worth and decision making.

You guys are adorable.

>>4708252
>Why cant we into eugenics so that everyone has a god tier brain and we can travel space?
>god tier brain and we can travel space
>god tier brain and travel space

Eugenics was being implemented in the early 20s. But thanks to Hitler, it has fallen out of favor with the public.

>>4708860

Name Somone who contributed anything substantial to mathematics or science with an IQ under 100.

Cause eugenics doesn't stop shit op.

>Hey guys we raised the average IQ by 15 to 30 points!
>So why is it we still have people doing stupid shit and others being socially corrupt as fuck?

Plus last time I check it was politics that was mostly stopping us from doing more advance space travel.

Why don't you just donate sperm?

If I had an incredibly high IQ(with no major hereditary flaws), I would be donating every fortnight.

>>4708853
"Economics" is about 99% total bullshit.

It was a different situation even 50 years ago, but now the vast majority of people consume more than they produce, and contribute enough to political obstruction of progress to wipe out the potential of many times what they actually consume.

People don't trust what they don't understand, and people who don't understand anything worth doing constitute a voting majority.

>>4708888
There are restrictions (at least in murrika). You have to be a certain height and certain weight along with other restrictions about not jacking it for certain periods of time, etc. etc.

Most people, especially on 4chan, wouldn't meet those requirements or restrictions.

>>4708872

Pretty sure among the farmers providing food to everyone there are quite a few with average IQ or lower.

Can't math if you're starving to death.

>>4708872

What kind of mathematics or science are we talking about here anon?

>>4708898
This pops up quite frequently with anti-eugenics advocates. Which I don't entirely agree with, but there are starting to be less and less "low-tier" jobs. Industrialization and mechanization of manual tasks is definitely not decelerating to any degree.

So I suppose you could argue that we shouldn't do it NOW, because we need laborers. However, that's actually a reason why we should start now, so that the effect will be noticeable when we don't need laborers. Lastly, one could argue that 500 "Gausses" could drastically advance society in a way that would decrease the time between now and entirely automated labor, rendering the entire anti-eugenic argument undeniably pointless...

Sperm banks already practice eugenics. There is no doubt that it can effectively improve the gene pool. The only roadblock is society's blind desire to artificially sustain the lives of every human. For example, genocide is practically taboo by most countries. But tell me, if the European settlers had not committed genocide, do you think today we would have the same level of technological progress that came largely as a result of US research and invention? Evolution is not kind or forgiving.

>>4708912
>Which I don't entirely agree with
Oops, should be the opposite. I don't disagree.
We DO need laborers (right now).

>>4708872
Dr. Huey Newton. Had an IQ of about 40

>>4708835

These sad saps. They come to Rapture, thinking they're gonna be captains of industry. But they all forget that somebody's gotta scrub the toilets.

>>4708926
Social sciences perhaps but that's quite a large segue

>>4708912
Pretty soon, we won't "need" scientists and mathematicians either.

...and it's less a matter of man-years than years. Nine women can't have a baby in one months, and all that.

Once we started making computers, no matter how few people worked on it, it was pretty much inevitable that they would keep getting faster and cheaper, with more memory. Things might have actually gone faster if there were only a few dozen researchers laboring in obscurity, not getting pushed to make something immediately practical or having dumptrucks full of cash backed up to their houses and tempting them to live in luxury.

And as computers get faster with more memory, it's inevitable that techniques of general reasoning will be discovered, and inevitable that they will surpass the workings of the human brain in every way, at lower cost than raising and educating a person.

When we get there, it won't matter how smart you are, it'll only matter how much call you have on computational resources.

>>4708916

Actually, despite what popular culture would have you believe, the native Americans had an advanced (and hygenic) culture prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Europeans just happened to stumble upon them after they had just suffered a disease that exceeded the black plague, and promptly infected them with smallpox, and bullets.

Had the Europeans not committed genocide, America would actually likely have thrived and grown similar to western Europe, just with less unbathed white people, and a better understanding of natural medicine.

>>4708961
I wish this were in person so I could see whether you could get through all that with a straight face.

>>4708916

>But tell me, if the European settlers had not committed genocide, do you think today we would have the same level of technological progress that came largely as a result of US research and invention?

It depends, the problem with your example is that kind of progress is mostly dependent on "not worrying about the natives so much anymore" than "we supposedly raise the intelligence level of america".

>>4708896

I'm 6'3, around 200 lbs and at the end of next year I'll have completed my BSc, would I qualify?

>>4708961
2/10
Made me chuckle.

Hey OP

Is that picture to scale?

How the FUCK did that brain fit in that guys head?

>>4708971
If you have no history of disease, and are of perfect health yourself, then I don't see why not.

If anything, you might be too tall.

>>4708967
>>4708972
>tfw americans dont know about Mayas, Incas or Aztecs.
It's either that or they think america is only the USA. Both ways they are retarded...

What I don't like of most eugenic supporters, is that they automatically assume they will be at the top of the totem pole.

What if you're not as special as you think you are?

What if you're selected for sterilization, or even euthanization?

Would you still stick to your guns for the betterment of the human race?

>>4708988
Yes.

>>4708972
>>4708967
http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html
http://books.google.ca/books?id=vSCra8jUI2EC&pg=PA50&dq=giovanni+verrazzano+smoky+bonfires&a
mp;hl=en&sa=X&ei=yT6xT9vDEOqriQLSheiHBA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=giovanni%20verrazzan
o%20smoky%20bonfires&f=false
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/uncovering-americas-pyramid-builders/article_view?b_start:int=0
&-C=
http://www.world-pyramids.com/atr/usa/monkmound.html
http://books.google.ca/books?id=vSCra8jUI2EC&pg=PA286&dq=Rather+than+the+thick,+unbroken
,+monumental+snarl+of+trees+imagined+by+Thoreau&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ov6ZT9_YK6Xy2QXAuICVDw
&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Rather%20than%20the%20thick%2C%20unbroken%2C%20monumental%20snarl%2
0of%20trees%20imagined%20by%20Thoreau&f=false

I don't know why I bothered, but here. Read the entirety of "Numbers from Nowhere?" now that I think of it. Might do you some good to actually learn and not just pretend you know things on an interned board.

>>4708982
>implying the Mayas, Incas, and Aztecs weren't obviously several thousand years behind Europe at that point
Face it: they were stone-age.

EVERYONE CHILL THE FUCK OUT AND LISTEN TO THIS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhsZcxnwLB4&feature=autoplay&list=PL9E684EACE1D19B61&play
next=2

>>4708988

>is that they automatically assume they will be at the top of the totem pole.

I don't.

>What if you're not as special as you think you are?

So be it.

>What if you're selected for sterilization, or even euthanization?

Sure if I know the humans of tomorrow will be master race. I don't see the logic behind euthanizing me though. Sterilization will be fine.

>Would you still stick to your guns for the betterment of the human race?

Yes. I'm sick of the lower vastly outnumbering the higher. It's caused enough problems, and it's only getting worse over time.

Eugenics: requires total control of the population with minimal to no personal freedom, requires total submission of the population, requires generations to see the arising effects and requires interventional countermeasures in case those effects do not arise

Genetic Engineering: merely needs a greenlight and permission of the parents, instantaneous, controlled effects within a single generation


Result: eugenics is for idiots.

>>4708997

Mayans knew more about astronomy and mathematics than the Europeans at that point in time.

Hardly stone age.

>>4709002
>Eugenics: Millions of years of proof of concept

>Genetic Engineering: Only theoretically possible, and after about 10 years and billions of dollars spent analyzing the genome we made a huge advancement in genetic engineering... oh wait.

Hey guise, still wondering how the fuck that big ass brain fit in that mofo's head.

These threads are useless. Thanks for making another one.

Ah yes, the infallible method of artificial selection.

What could possibly go wrong.

Ah yes, the infallible method of artificial selection.

What could possibly go wrong.

>>4709018

>>4709032
problem is for every Border Collie breed...there are about 20 breeds of worthless shits like >>4709018

>>4709048

vienerdog are best dog

>>4709032

Difference is, if you screw up a batch of humans in search for the perfect "breed" you go to this place called "Court of Human Rights"

>>4709005
>Mayans knew more about astronomy and mathematics than the Europeans at that point in time.
No, they really, really didn't.

Jesus Christ, read an actual book.

CREATE A RACE OF SUPERHUMANS?

DOES NO ONE WATCH STAR TREK? EVERYONE WILL BE GETTING AN EAR FULL OF BRAIN WORM!

>Eugenics gains worldwide acceptance in 2025.

>500 years later, a virus capable of exploiting a previously unknown genetic defect begins to cause mass extinction on the human race.

>Retards (< 100 IQ) who managed to escape eugenics are the only population that is immune to the virus.

>>4709100
This would never happen. You cannot create a virus, nor can nature, to selectively target the Neural cell adhesion molecule. It's biochemically impossible.

Everyone tries to procure the best possible mate to have children with which's a natural form of eugenics.

As synthetic methods become functional and affordable they'll grow popular.

>>4709127
>Eugenics gains worldwide acceptance in 2025.

>500 years later, 90% of the population is capable of building a thermonuclear weapon in their basement

>0.8% of that 90% suffers from a serious mental illness

>>4709127


DUDE, RABIES AND HERPES INFECT NEURONS. IN A WORLD WHERE DISEASE IS A MAJOR SELECTIVE PRESSURE, INTELLIGENCE IS NOT ALWAYS SELECTED FOR, DISEASE RESISTANCE IS. BIG POWERFUL BRAINS DEMAND A LOT OF NUTRIENTS, SO DO GOOD IMMUNE SYSTEMS. YOU CAN'T ALWAYS HAVE BOTH.

William Sidis vowed to live a celibate life at the age of 16 after graduating Harvard.

The bigger your brain the less pussy you get. Humanity screwed.

>>4708961
Unlikely. Their average IQ is too low compared to whites.

>>4709002
>Eugenics: requires total control of the population with minimal to no personal freedom, requires total submission of the population, requires generations to see the arising effects and requires interventional countermeasures in case those effects do not arise

This guy obviously does not understand eugenics. He thinks eugenics is limited to state-controlled negative eugenics. This is not the case. There are many ways to do eugenics. I have mentioned many in this thread alone, some of them negative eugenics, some of them positive. Some of them state-controlled others free.

>>4709137
>Everyone tries to procure the best possible mate to have children with which's a natural form of eugenics.

Close, but not correct. Eugenics is the applied science of doing this. Choosing a mate with good genes thru normal mate selection/sexual selection is not an applied science.

>>4708988
It is only u that have the problem. Eugenics is not limited to state-controlled negative eugenics. Please read something like eugenics and stop posting in the meanwhile.

>>4709032
One day, when I finish uni...

Why increase intelligence though?
All of you are looking at the benefits of intelligence from a societal perspective - but does intelligence improve the happiness of an individual?
Do we even need to be any smarter to know the romance of science? I find that this kind of "futurist" yearning cheapens the virtue of academic pursuit.
When you've reduced the fate of mankind to a matter of intelligence, what you're really doing is oversimplifying. Same thing as with "nanobots", "hard AI", or any technology we're not even close to realizing - you're disavowing responsibility for the future by tacking your hopes onto a pipe dream.

>>4710114
>Do we even need to be any smarter to know the romance of science?

I find your lack of vision disturbing.

>>4710128
Is there anything about science that can't be learned? Science is purely conceptual, it's not as if some people are physically incapable of understanding a concept.
You're talking about hereditary intelligence, which is a completely different thing from learned intelligence.

said like someone who hasn't talked to a normie about science in a while.

Could you engineer everyone's brain so that all adults are 100% heterosexual? No more pedophiles, no more fetishists, no more sadists-masochists, no more transsexuals, no more gays and lesbians. So, as a result of this change, there will be less social conflict.

Similarly, for intelligence-focused eugenics. Everyone has a high congnitive abilities brain and so there will be less conflict rooted in intelligence differences. But would, on average, intelligence rise as a result of modifying the supporting genotype, or the high degree of similar cognitive abilities would level the genetic effect off to a great extent, due to lack of specific environmental pressures which lead to higher intelligence in a more diverse genotype?

You would trust a bunch of retarded bureaucrats with such a decision ?
Obviously self regulating/eugenics is the way to go, but a forced authority version of eugenics is just laughable.

Where does that obsession with "going to space" come from?

What's more interesting about space than say, the properties of matter, the inside of a cell, etc?

What cultural values led you to this desire?
Space operas?
Maybe there is a need for freedom while personal space gets reduced every generation.

>>4710218

For 99.9% of our history we were hunters and gatherers.
Millions of years of evolution meticulously crafted this calling that we can hardly articulate or describe. We MUST go where we can go. Our species has spread to every continent and corner of the globe, we must always continue to explore.

It's not culture.

>>4710218
Its human nature to explore (it's as simple as that)

>>4710142
>it's not as if some people are physically incapable of understanding a concept
Take out "physically" (which makes the whole sentence bizarre), and this is just wrong.

People have limits on what they can understand.

>You're talking about hereditary intelligence, which is a completely different thing from learned intelligence.
Another sentence that is just bizarre. "Intelligence" in the sense of "information" is a completely different thing from "intelligence" in the sense of "ability to think", but the second sort of intelligence is the same thing regardless of whether you're focusing on the hereditary component or the environmental component.

>all that butthurt

chillax bros

>>4710291

But intelligent people don't care that much about "exploring".

Scientists want to discover things, but they need a good amount of security to be able to do this.
The people who have done the greatest bunch of exploration weren't "hard" scientists.
Botanists, geologists, zoologists...

>>4710297
That "nature" argument sounds weird to me coming from somebody who wants to modify the physiology of humans on a societal scale...

Scientists want to discover the properties of things, right, but they don't need to go to space for that.
It seems like there is a large amount of users who romanticize science with that space-faring ideal.

>>4710218

Mostly man's need to expaned, branch out and test the boundaries of life. The fact that our history has shown much emphasis on travel only solidifies the fact that space travel is a logical step for us to take.

Which makes the talk about eugenics funny since the environmental presures (both natural and artificial) alone for space and planet exploration is not fully known yet. So assuming that we need eugenics to increase our fluid and crystalized intelligence for it only sets us up for possible trouble in the future.

>>4710335

Yeah that was what I was trying to understand.

Why define intelligence as the one end-all factor to judge human beings while your goal is not specifically to deal with activities that require intelligence, but simply to spread out in space like all others, less intelligent living beings?

I'm sure this has to do with culture.

>>4710298
Are you implying that some people are born with information already in their heads? I'm pretty sure that what I said made sense.
What's "bizarre" is your baldfaced assertion that there are hard limits to one's comprehension. "If you can't explain it to your grandmother, then you haven't understood it."
That quote rings true in this case.

>>4710335

Intelligence is the only important trait here. If you can't see this you are a faggot.

>>4710335

How so?
Birds are less intelligent than you and I, but they're free to fly wherever they want, very efficiently.

Engineering humans to extract energy from anything but air, resist radiations, or simply resist very long-term isolation like a tardigrade would help way better to travel in space.

Intelligence is an important trait for intellectual pursuits, exploring anything isn't necessarily an intellectual pursuit.

>>4710394

>Intelligence is the only important trait here. If you can't see this you are a faggot.

No anon that fact you toss aside everything and solely focus on the need and application of intelligence for factors not yet known and defined makes you look like a certified ass.

>>4710398

I'm not trying to regard that intelligence is required for travel nor am I trying to say genetic engineering is bad. I'm merely pointing out that making assumptions that we need to alter our intelligence for unearthly factors that have yet to be fully analyzed is a bit rash.

But then us humans do tend to be rash at times, so maybe it's fitting for us to do so.