/sci/ - Science & Math

we can breed all kinds of dogs, but all of them are stupid little shits. seems like there are limits.

>>6461058
When did we ever breed dogs purely for intelligence and capability?

>>6461058

Not talking about dogs, I'm talking about humans.

The key difficulty of eugenics is that we're going to have modern, inferior men trying to predict what future, superior men would look like. It's a bit like asking a kid what he wants to be like when he grows up.

That is to say I don't think there's a place for eugenics, but I think it should be implemented with a very conservative approach; the main focus should be on stopping clearly bad traits, like hereditary diseases, from propagating, rather than encouraging supposedly good traits, like IQ.

Every day eugenics and every day 0.999... = 1. Every fucking day, /sci/. And then I get a three day ban for having the nerve to say that Cosmos is for science casuals and discussion of it should be discouraged.

Well this is the outcome. Welcome to /sci/ - Eugenics and 0.999... = 1.

>>6461077

Do you also go to /lit/ expecting to discuss good books?

>>6461079
I'm a casual reader, why would I go to /lit/?

>>6461077

Well, I'm not a regular here so I didn't know eugenics was a topic that had already been discussed that much over here.

>>6461071
I'm pretty sure a high IQ is more than a 'supposedly good trait'

>>6461071
Pretty much this, we can try to eliminate diseases but improving things becomes a problem.
>>6461053

also, watch these
>inb4 popsci

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr5n_ZOZ6E8
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-48RVaqZck

>>6461071
Isn't rather easy to propagate traits like enhanced strength and stamina? At least it has been shown in mice. IQ seems to be a bit more difficult to track down in humans.

>>6461086
We have had this thread over 200 times not including threads that just use that image instead of word "eugenics"
Now that you know you can delete the thread and go read the archives

>>6461115
It is social-economic status, including of course intelligence of available parents and nutritous food. I think (forgot the sources) only something like 2% is genetically, at least what is known today.

>>6461112

Intelligence is a good trait. IQ is one way of measuring it. It seems to correlate quite well in current conditions, but that does not mean if we start actively selecting for IQ scores the correlation will continue to hold.

>>6461121
Only 2%!? Interesting. I'll have to fact check that of course but good info.

>>6461125
Its more like 90+% - the difficulty is that most of the genes determining intellectuality are either dominant or resessive

>>6461111

Interesting. I wonder if genetically modifying babies could solve the problem of developing countries with low human capital.

>>6461112
You're committing the error that OP was alluding to.
There are plenty of reasons why improving IQ could potentially be a "trap" or turn out to be less than ideal once we arrive there.
example: higher intelligence is correlated with higher incidence of depression.

What if turning the entire next generation into superhuman intellects via, say, genetic modification would inadvertedly be the biggest contributor to the start of world war 3 - or conversely, the end of western civilization through incompetence due to everyone being unable to get out of bed in the morning?

It's much safer to remove negative traits than to encourage positive traits.

>>6461328

>It's much safer to remove negative traits

Like stupidity?

>>6461071
I agree. I think it should be used to prevent or improve negative traits (mostly, if not completely, in regards to health) but not accentuate the good. Also, it should be free and easily available to everyone; otherwise, there would be a huge divide in social class and disparity in power.

>>6461179
>Its more like 90+%

sounds like nonsense IMO.
90% with reference to what?
what does it mean to ascribe a percentage value to this?
what you eat and your genes are both absolutely essential to your development; you could not exist without either.

it could only be relevant with reference to talking about the source of differences within a population in a given society.
In the US where the overall disparity in quality of life is lower than for example the ROC. So differences in traits will be due more to genetics than 'nurture' in the US than in a developing country.

Secondly, 'heredity' isn't 'genetics'. There exist a gradient of influences on phenotype between genetics and purely environmental factors.

>>6461328

>What if turning the entire next generation into superhuman intellects

But what if instead of using eugenics to make superhumans we use it to remove stupid people. I wouldn't want to live in a world full of intellectuals, but I have a problem with places where most people have very poor cognitive abilities.

>>6462599

Also, would regression towards the mean be a barrier to eugenics?

>>6461071
It's already there. It's called pre-natal screening.
See attached.

>>6461077
Eugenics is one of the most interesting subjects.

>>6461125
>>6461179
>>6461407
>Its more like 90+% - the difficulty is that most of the genes determining intellectuality are either dominant or resessive

No. The genes are almost all additive. The current estimates are in the area 50-85%. The 50 lower limit comes from purely genetic studies, not pedigree. About 85% is the upper limit of twin studies.

>>6461328
>>6461353
>It's much safer to remove negative traits than to encourage positive traits.

It is the same in practice. Encourage smartness. Discourage stupidity.

>>6462600
No, but it slows it down.

If you are curious OP, read: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=062AE7BDC71206418D86334DBD710D4C&open=0

>>6462695

>No, but it slows it down.

By how much do you think?

>>6462695
>>6461353
It is not the same process once you get down to it. When I refer to negative traits, I'm talking about specific environmental factors and conditions as well as genes or epigenetic factors that are pathological or clearly problematic in nature.
I'm not referring to "becoming less smart". That's mincing words.

>>6462869
By 1-narrow heritability (additive genes only).

For any polygenic trait:

gen2 = narrow_heritability*(gen1-population mean)+population mean.

So, if parents are +2SD in whatever trait and narrow heritability is .7, then the 2nd gen. will be +2*.7=+1.4SD.

>>6462916
Most forms of retardation for europeans are caused by specific genetic errors, e.g. chromosome errors.

>>6461053
>what would stop it from working?
The people who would be negatively effected

If humans are at all desirable, then human activity itself has value. As such, if you believe that genome-wide restrictions need to be placed on human activity, then we should all be committing mass-sudoku anyways. I, on the other hand, still hold some sliver of hope for humanity. Because of this (and the plethora of moral issues raised by the alternative) I think the best and perhaps only way to improve humanity as a species is through giving people with desirable traits (strength, health, significant contributions to human knowledge) high incentives to have lots of kids. That is until laboratory genetic manipulation becomes practicable, at which people we should give those same high incentives for people to take advantage of state-supplied genetics. However I think a more urgent and more immediately remediable problem with humanity is the total lack of direction in upbringing (and yes, nurture is just as valuable as nature, if you don't agree gtfo back to >>>/pol/). Any efforts put towards "Eugenics" are largely wasted if children continue to be raised as morons by moron parents with moron beliefs and no scientific understanding of how to raise their children.

>>6462936
With embryo selection, there are no people who would be negatively effected.

>>6462982
Classical positive eugenics does not work very well.

Embryo selection is the next tier. After that we do germ line genetic engineering. That's the next tier again.

>Any efforts put towards "Eugenics" are largely wasted if children continue to be raised as morons by moron parents with moron beliefs and no scientific understanding of how to raise their children.

Parenting has little effect on how kids turn out. Shared environment has little or no effects on most traits at adulthood.

>>6463011
"Parenting has little effect on how kids turn out. Shared environment has little or no effects on most traits at adulthood."

Horseshit.

Sure is brave new world in here. This is why top tier intellect always comes with aspie social problems. EVERYONES TOO STUPID, WHY DON'T THEY WORSHIP ME AND MY DANGEROUS BULLSHIT

>eugenics
I am sticking with Transhumanism Being a Robit is much cooler

>>6463011
>Parenting has little effect on how kids turn out. Shared environment has little or no effects on most traits at adulthood.

>>6463036
>>6463056
This is mainstream knowledge in the field. In fact, one behavioral geneticist (Erik Turkheimer) named it as one of the laws of behavior genetics. Juddith Harris wrote a book about it, etc.

"Second Law: The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of the genes."

As I said, mainstream knowledge in the field.

>>6461053
>Hello, /sci/. What's your opinion on eugenics?
It's pseudo-science.
>Do you think it would work?
Nope.
>If not, what would stop it from working?
People.

The closest thing you can get to Eugenics is nature. Be picky and choosey who you fuck and others will do the same. Let nature run its course.

Having a panel of "experts" who decide, at large, who gets to have sex/breed and who doesn't is a road to disaster.

Truthfully, it could eventually lead to the extinction of the human race by limiting the population size and the diversity of our genetic pool.

>>6463011
>Parenting has little effect on how kids turn out. Shared environment has little or no effects on most traits at adulthood.
says the sociopathic autist who was abused and neglected.

>>6463128
agreed.

parenting and the environment in which an individual grew up in are highly critical factors when discerning adult characteristics of a person. Not only do physical variables, such as quality of food and exercise, influence a persons health; the emotional care and attention provided by parents also helps instill in children the beginnings of certain moral values. Whether they are cared for or neglected will have great repercussions throughout their lives as it will lead to biased/distorted views of reality, ultimately effecting how people perceive others and the world around them

>>6463104
Genotype is in fact a more systematic source of variability than environment, but for reasons that are methodological rather than substantive. Development is fundamentally Non-Linear,Interactive,and difficult to control experimentally. Twin studies offer a useful methodological shortcut, but do not show that genes are more fundamental than environments.

>>6463144
>the emotional care and attention provided by parents also helps instill in children the beginnings of certain moral values.
Not only that but social behavior and rules are all learned. Knowing to keep your pants on at work is something less subtle than "putting your best face forward" and knowing how to work in groups well.

It took me a while personally and I'm fairly decent at it. At the very least I know how to solve.minimize problems. None of this shit is "genetic"!

>>6461112
>high IQ is more than a 'supposedly good trait'

We also need to take a holistic approach and consider that many of these traits are not 'isolated' things e.g. autism correlated with intelligence and so on.

>>6463011
>Parenting has little effect on how kids turn out. Shared environment has little or no effects on most traits at adulthood.
this is bullshit, dear

>>6463145
I have no idea what "genes are more fundamental than environments." means, if anything. But pedigree studies, including twin studies, show that genetics is more important for explaining traits in adults than environments.

Modern assumption free studies confirm the high heritability, so the old trick of trying to discredit twin studies no longer works.

>>6463191
>>6463128
>>6463144
Those who cannot argue, are left to post irrelevancies or insults.

>>6461053
YOUR ALL FUCKING NAZIS
it would be wrong to even try

>>6463246
lock the infant of a highly successful and intelligent person in a closet until age 10.

They will be a drooling, squealing idiot with no language or social skills.

You can't have any genes to "express" if there is no nurture to cultivate it.

We aren't insects. You're wrong.

>>6463300
>refutes an obvious straw man

Yes, you really showed me there. :) Will you be talking about feral children next, Goddard's noncontribution to immigration laws of '21, phrenology and SJ. Gold's inability to measure skulls? :)

>>6463302
because business executives form all of their social skills after they emerge from their insectoid pods.

So life is just a genetic lottery? You basically have no control of how intelligent/stupid you'll turn out to be. Your path in life is essentially predetermined at birth, and the degree of one's mental abilities governs how successful you'll be and the quality of life you'll enjoy.

>>6463355
You decide plenty of things, such as what you learn and what you don't learn.

>>6461071
>rather than encouraging supposedly good traits, like IQ.
Indeed, as it seems that even on a Genetic level, Nurture still prevail, as it was recently proven that Aqcuired capacity can be transmitted too.

And that include knowledge:
http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272

Rather than Eugenic, education seems to be the way to go, even on a genetic level.

>>6463355
>So life is just a genetic lottery? You basically have no control of how intelligent/stupid you'll turn out to be.
According to recent discovery, not entierly, as it turn out that what a being learn can also be transmitted.
>>6463366
see

>>6463366
>http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272
This study does not seem conclusive. I will wait until independent replication.

By optimizing the societal environment and populace's genetics you end up the best civilization. Neither factor should be neglected.

>>6463366
Nurture can't just willy-nilly transfer to the next generation, DNA contains only about ~50 MB of information. Epigenetics is itself limited by genetics, ie the ability of environmental factors to influence the biochemistry of descendants must itself be selected for by natural selection in the original DNA (all the DNA methyltransferases and other proteins in translation). Therefore, only traits for which epigenetic variability is evolutionary advantageous and which had enough time to be selected for enough generations will actually exist. This is obviously true for the mice, "remembering" some chemical (the smell of a predator) from past generations, this is clearly a massive evolutionary advantage.
Being less intelligent because your parents are less intelligent obviously isn't. There's no good reason for why human (or any animal) should evolve the ability to partly inherit environmental factors in their parents intelligence (if anything, they should evolve the opposite, if environment made your parents stupid, you should be relatively spending more resources on your brain to counterbalance the detrimental environmental factors), and it's even harder to posit a mechanism how the variability of intelligence somehow gets encoded back into DNA-methylation (that's considerably easier in the mice example, since detectors for that chemical already exist in all mice, regardless of epigenetic status, just upregulating the production of that specific gene is probably enough to produce the effects observed).
Remember, evolution is no magical faerie, complex systems only exist if they convey an evolutionary advantage.

>>6463144

The problem here is that most of you seem to be jumping to an extreme. Obviously, nurture seems to have an immense effect when you compare a an abusive, poor and criminal family living in a slum filled with gang violence, to a rich, well educated and good mannered family.

In reality however, I think it's safe to say that most families at grow up roughly within the same parameters. At least the variables are far more similar than in the case of the extreme.

Meanwhile, in China...
https://www.cog-genomics.org/

Just imagine, big boobs everywhere

>>6463355
No. The effects of intelligence and genetics is mostly probabilistic. You get to decide many things, but the genes contribute to who you are and thus indirectly to what you choose to decide.

>>6463366
There is no evidence that education transfers epigenetically.

>>6463509
In extreme situations, environment has an effect, e.g. for feral children or those locked in a closet. However, it seems to be remediable. For instance, deaf children perform quite well on non-verbal tests of intelligence, so their lack of audio input did not affect their intelligence.

>>6463859
>tits and ass.jpg
isn't this supposed to be a worksafe board?

>>6463859
big breasts are gross

>>6461293
>Interesting. I wonder if genetically modifying babies could solve the problem of developing countries with low human capital.

Very simple to do: Send them the sperm of highly intelligent people.

>>6461293
Yes, this is the only solution.

>>6464018
This won't do.

What we need to do is make embryo selection very cheap and then apply it widely. The genes for intelligence are also found in Africans, just in lower frequencies. We need to change that.

>>6464034

Your idea is not practical at all, almost to the point that you want it to fail. Embryos are fragile. Sperm is durable and easy to transport. Billions of dollars worth of bovine sperm is traded all over the world every year, for example. Send the human sperm down to a place where living is easy, like a Brazilian favela, mix them up, and they'll have thousands of highly intelligent people in a generation.

Most intelligent people live in colder climates, so their birth rate is low. But if we sent our sperm down to these warmer places, we could increase the birth rate of intelligent people.

>>6461071
>IQ
>supposedly good

Retard detected. We've known about IQ and g for like 100 years. We know what it correlates with.

It's time for eugenics.

>>6464008
>big breasts are gross

Faggot!

>>6464053
Is that your fetish or something?

>>6464059
>It's time for eugenics.
prefer having the freedom to breed with who the fuck i like thanks

ITT: People deny the obvious benefits of eugenics of any kind with fallacies and denial.

Eugenics is coming. Embryo selection is already happening in China. Once all of the alleles implicated in intelligence are known we will be able to engineer synthetic genomes for genius and mass produce them. Imagine thousands of Feynmans and Einsteins working on the world's problems.

>>6464059
>for like 100 years

Yeah, and you'll be the first to go.

>>6464083
eugenics != negative eugenics

Positive eugenics for intelligence is much more feasible.

http://www.geniusspermbank.com/

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/seed/2001/02/the_genius_babies_and_how_they_grew.html

>>6464088
Killing people doesn't have to be part of Eugenics.

>>6464089
>slate.com

and filtered, lol tripfags

>>6464090
Who said anything about killing? Get a vasectomy.

>>6464096
>Get a vasectomy.

But I have an IQ of 128.

>>6461079

So 4chan boards are only for those who have an autistic level of obsession over that board's topic?

Who came to that conclusion?

(I mean if this is the working theory it explains a lot about this place)

>>6464089
eugenics implies some kind of program. if it is voluntary, i predict only a minority will take part, as is the case nowadays, which will have minimal effect on the genepool

>>6461053
the biggest apolitical issue I see with eugenics is that it holds unforeseen consequences.

For example, say we were to elliminate something like sickle cell via eugenics. Then, a super-malaria bug sweeps the world.
Sickle cell afflicted individuals are immune to malaria. Without them, we could face extinction.

>>6464106
>if it is voluntary, i predict only a minority will take part, as is the case nowadays, which will have minimal effect on the genepool

It's not about affecting the gene pool. It's about creating intelligent people who would otherwise not exist.

>>6464107
>Without them, we could face extinction.
>Without niggers, we could face extinction.

Sounds worth the risk to me.

>>6464109
>eugenics not about genes

>>6464111
>>>/pol/

>>6464059
>Retard detected. We've known about IQ and g for like 100 years. We know what it correlates with.

Spearman, C.E. (1904). "'General intelligence', Objectively Determined And Measured". American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.

Yes, Spearman's paper dates to 1904.

>>6464053
Why would Africans use European (or whatever) sperm? African men are of course not interested in this. Embryo selection avoids this problem.

>>6464106
>eugenics implies some kind of program. if it is voluntary, i predict only a minority will take part, as is the case nowadays, which will have minimal effect on the genepool

You mean like... pre-natal screening? Everybody uses that now a days. So it will be for embryo selection in a few decades.

>>6464109
>It's not about affecting the gene pool.
that's a strange notion of eugenics you have

The main goals of eugenics can only be achieved through direct genetic manipulation and not by breeding alone. Breeding is too imprecise. See: hemophilia in the French royal family and arthritis in Labradors.

>>6464118
>So it will be for embryo selection in a few decades.
how do you know?

>>6464127
Compare with history of pre-natal screening and IVF. Similar technologies, now widely, in the 80's or so, controversial.

See also: http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/embryo.pdf

>>6464118
>Why would Africans use European (or whatever) sperm? African men are of course not interested in this. Embryo selection avoids this problem.

higher intelligence = better job = more money = family and clan has more money and better life.

>>6464315
Fathers don't get any of this. The children will, but they are not theirs.

Furthermore, they don't understand this long term planning due to low initial g to begin with.

Sperm donation does not work, not even in the US. They already tried that.

>>6461071
>the main focus should be on stopping clearly bad traits, like hereditary diseases, from propagating
That's how it starts... and then you realise that a certain trait does better in society, that's when those traits become good traits and the others become bad traits.

>>6464360
Furthermore, you're a dumbass.

>>6463843

Noice. The chinks are our last hope.

>>6461053
>If not, what would stop it from working?
That morons like you want it and would end up in charge.

>>6464913

What do you think are the negative points of eugenics? And why do you think they outweigh the positive ones such as improving human capital of impoverished countries.

>>6464921

He just said why.

>>6464926

He needs to elaborate that.

>>6464921
>What do you think are the negative points of eugenics?
That a committee or agency consisting of ideologic faggots, including you, is going to decide on who can breed and what's considered desireable.

And that's precisely what will happen, because if you probe the genes of anyone well enough you'll find some trait to rule undersireable in anyone.

"this man is a likely carrier of ovarian cancer genes?, he's ugly too so snip his tubes!"
"this lady have dyslipidemia? I don't really know what that is, but she criticized me on her blog so she clearly is undesireable!"

>>6464938

Do you understand why communism doesn't work?

>>6464939

There might be alternatives to not letting certain people breed. And some traits are clearly desirable, like intelligence. The average IQ in Africa is 70, I can't see how they'll ever get out of poverty without genetic modification.

>>6464941

No, why?

>>6464939
>>implying no nuanced scoring system
>>muh feelings

>>6464954
how do you not let someone breed?

what if someone decides they want to have their own baby?

what do you convince people you want to do to people who want to give birth to their own child despite your protests?
throw them down the stairs? irradiate them? imprison them?
force surgery upon them?

Why bother with eugenics when cyborgs and cloning can generate all the productive populace you could need in a fraction of the time ?

>>6464977

Noone would be forced not to breed. We could use embryo selection or something like that.

I don't see what's the problem in forcing people to genetically improve their children. It's like education, except it works.

>>6464315
>>6464954

Protip: If you want africa to improve then stop trying to fuck with it so much. You want them to be inspired and aspire not to be controlled and then reject. We already know what kind result comes from that through african american culture which has been so focused on distrust against the establishment (and for good reason) that they rarely have time for self attainment and knowledge. And become more a blight on society than anything else.

Pic related, it's you at the end of day realizing for the first time you're not gods but men with flaws who can't always paint the world in the image of yourself. And the only person there to listen to your troubles is some little girl could care less about that shit.

>>6465163
this, just leave the Africans alone, they dont need our technology and medicine, they were doing so well on their own.

>>6464954

>not understanding how prenatal care/nutrition affects brain development
>not understanding genotype vs phenotype differentiation
>not understanding how maintenance and preventive care affects QOL
>not understanding the flaws of IQ anthropologically
>being this ill-informed even with thousands of resources at your fingertips

Well gee that doesn't sound like a person I'd like to have in an ideal society, maybe we shouldn't let you breed, huh?


>>6465204

Technology isn't linear, and I strongly suggest you look into trying to find a history of the different regions of Africa, preferably with a focus on pre-colonialism. Africa is a very big place, and to try to sum it up like that is the same as saying there is no difference between North America and South America --they're nearly same size put together as Africa is in total. Please educate yourself.

>>6464971

>implying eugenics doesn't fall back on subjectivity and societal values


Sorry to come off as a jerk, but wow!

Anyway, if you guys would like any sources for any of this I'd be glad to link some stuff. Although I'm glad to see this didn't devolve into "grr black people!" as fast as it usually does! Even though it did eventually.


PS.

Why talk about putting all this infrastructure work into eugenics instead of talking about how to make the existing infrastructure in places with health disparity better?

Can we just get rid of the niggers? Can we honestly say they're a positive impact on the human race?

Stop dancing around the elephant in the room.

>>6465518
They fill up labor jobs and take menial positions. So, they are necessary.

>>6465489

I would like to see those links.

>Well gee that doesn't sound like a person I'd like to have in an ideal society, maybe we shouldn't let you breed, huh?

I'm not white. I have sub-saharan africa ancestry and I've already decided that I'll never have children and I'd encourage my siblings to do the same.

>>6465557
Sure anon!

Is there any one topic you'd like in particular? The AAA's official statement on race is pretty neat.. http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

Where would you like to start?

>>6465575

I'd like to know more about "prenatal care/nutrition affects brain development".

>>6465536
You're on a science board claiming we need to continue shitting in the gene pool so we have cheap labor, when automation could do this without the disastrous side effects.
>necessity is the mother of innovation
I hope you don't advocate for the brown hordes overruning us from the south as well?

The poor, unhealthy, and stupid should not be allowed to reproduce.

>topic subject

>>6465624

Sure!

It's generally accepted knowledge that things like high alcohol consumption, smoking, and drug use in general has an effect in the womb, usually with birth defects and elevates the risk of a premature birth.

That being said, a lack of proper nutrition, even when it doesn't present itself as what we'd call a birth defect can still have tremendous effects on the brain. Even in utero our body begins to transition to what we expect to experience on the outside, for example, the children concieved during the Hongerwinter (an only 3 month long famine) not only experienced a far higher incidence of sickness, but their children (the children of the children in gestation during the Hongerwinter) experienced similar effects!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18715409
(Kids of the kids have increased illness)

http://www.nufs.sjsu.edu/clariebh/dutch%20study.pdf
(Prenatal nutrition effects)

But this is general malnutrition, let's look closer at specific (micro)nutrients; the big ones for pregnant women being iron, folic acid, and calcium.

Calcium is an easy one, it helps bone development. No brainer.

A lack of folic acid causes neural tube defects, basically some problem between the brain and the spine. When you hear "prenatal vitamins" a folic acid supplement is one of the first things to be brought up. Some researchers claim that its deficiency might stretch to an increased chance of oral clefts and prematurity (preterm birth).

Iron has a connection with folic acid, and it's believed that it might assist the transfer of folic acid (kind of like how the sun helps "activate" vitamin D). Of course, maternal anemia can cause things like restricted fetal growth, lower birth weight, lymphatic problems, and of course a higher maternal mortality rate. Maternal anemia is an extremely common issue, with an estimate of 20% of pregnant women in "developed" countries and 70-80% of pregnant women in "undeveloped" countries being effected.

CONT W/ SOURCES

>>6465703

Stupid character limit.

There's lots of other micronutrients that result in deficit during pregnancy, but those are some of the biggest. Iodine and zinc can both cause mental retardation and other miscellaneous congenital effects, and all these are just some of the micronutrients we have human research on! In guinea pigs, even a minor deficiency in vitamin C results in a 10-15% stunting of the hippocampus!

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/5/1280s.full
(On iron deficiency)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218540/
(On folic acid deficiency)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121116085629.htm
(Guinea pigs! Cute, but not very good at remembering.)

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/1/280s.full
(An excellent paper covering prenatal nutrition in general)

Prenatal (and natal!) care assures that women understand why diet is important, why breastmilk is important, and lets a midwife/nurse check for any possible problems or deficiencies. Speaking of breastmilk and easily preventable problems..

In the 70s Nestle began a strong campaign in "3rd world" countries to convince them that breastmilk could not guarantee proper nutrition, and began positing that formula showed you were "modern". Western women use formula, why not you? Of course, formula is expensive, and a low literacy rate leads to complications involving sterilization. If you don't mind a "biased" source, then the below pdf is interesting, and the WHO has recommended exclusive breastfeeding for at least 6 months for quite a while! But that's ranting.. With (pre)/natal care women can be educated even further on stuff like nutrition and teach proper latching techniques or how to spot signs of illness in their child..

http://www.babymilkaction.org/pdfs/babykiller.pdf
(the pdf title is a bit dramatic, huh?)

http://www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/
(Who? WHO)

I'm going to hop off for now, but if you want to know more, just say so! I'll pop back in in a bit.

Africa needs millions of capable engineers and farmers to get the continent working right. It can either hire foreigners, or make hybrids with imported sperm. Making hybrids would be cheaper in the long run.

>>6465703
>>6465762

That might play a role, but it still doesn't explain how rural chineses still score quite high on IQ tests. Or how mixed race children with white mother score on average less than white children.

>>6465575
It's also garbage.

>>6466054
These effects have already been tried to explain race differences, in particular African Americans vs. European Americans (the best studied one). The differences in these environmental toxins are way too low to be a large part of the explanation.

For the biological concept of race, see: https://thenatureofrace.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/thenatureofrace1-01.pdf

Hey there! Back for a while!

>>6466054
I would love to see the studies you're talking about, could you please link them to me? In particular I'd love to see if the second study adjusted for things like poverty, stability, and healthcare.

Were the tests administered in the first study from an unbiased official? Have they been repeated and the methodology questioned? Have the scores been adjusted for the fact we're dealing with children here?

>>6466088
"environmental toxins" sorry what? Your entire post is a little hard to read for me, you seem like you're jumping off into the middle of a thought to begin your sentence.

I'm currently reading through your pdf though, and it's interesting, but unfortunately thus far has been pretty pedantic in its "well your definition is wrong and mine is right because I said so" kind of attitude with little focus on genetically based studies and discussion of phenotypic canalization. I'm sure it'll pick up and talk about some of this as I get closer to the middle though! Is there anything particularly interesting you'd recommend for me to watch for anon? I'll be sure to try to get around to posting a criticism (or agreement) after I'm done!

>>6461071
Totally agree.

>>6461112
IQ a shit get rekt

>mfw people don't understand the path humanity needs to take for success in the future

>>6465089

>Noone would be forced not to breed. We could use embryo selection or something like that.

what does 'use embryo selection' even mean with reference to eugenics?

what i asked was, how do you stop people from having sex to give birth in the first place?

>I don't see what's the problem in forcing people to genetically improve their children. It's like education, except it works.

how is it 'like education'

what does 'use embryo selection' even mean?

>>6461053

It would work but too many humans think they are entitled to poop out as many babies as possible.

>>6466266

I think you're confused.

Eugenics isn't population control in the sense of moderating population size.
We already do that, all over the world.

>>6466269

Eugenics - "It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits"

I'm not sure how I can accomplish this without limiting "dumb" people from reproducing. And no, I'm not going to go genocide to do it.

>>6466272
the implication being that only dumb people have lots of children?

>>6466272
What's the problem with keeping "dumb" people from reproducing?
>don't want to genocide
You don't need to. Just set up a government program that gives tax breaks to those who are classified as "dumb" and who agree not to reproduce.

>>6466229

So far this has been pretty hard to read, particularly because of gems like this

"Since we are advancing an evolutionary ~ genotypic concept of race, we are open to
classifying our hypothetical Watson simply based on genotype alone. If two horses
begat, in the natural way, a genotypic and phenotypic human, most people would
probably classify the genealogical horse-genotypic human as a human. That is, we
imagine that most people would classify by genotypic-phenotypic similarity, and not
pedigree, in case of gross discordance. So, when it comes to racial groups, doing the
same wouldn't seem to us to be unreasonable."

Now pardon me for not being quite so eloquent in saying this, but this is fucking stupid. This is easily one of the stupidest fucking arguments I've ever heard in my entire godforsaken life. The fact that someone shat this out of the brain in an attempt to sound intelligent is astounding to me. I'm going to come back to this tomorrow, because holy shit, did you even read this? It's like this guy is just talking and talking without any real point, trying to becloud any argument behind non-sense examples and unnecessary terminology.

I'm gonna have to return to this tomorrow (or when my brain begins to comprehend things like "if we put two horses together and it made a human, we'd call it a human")unless you'd like to actually try to make an argument instead of linking to a paper to solve all your woes.

>>6466280

Thought of that before. Maybe $500 to get a vasectomy at age 18 but also freeze a jar of sperm some where.

>>6466229
I'm not the same person as whoever you were talking with. I'm >>6463246

I re-read my post. It seems clear to me.

Many people want to explain race differences, in particular that between African Americans and European Americans, by environmental, non-hereditary factors. For instance, by their exposure to environmental toxins. If, for instance, AA's are exposed to higher levels of environmental lead, a known cause of lower g, then this might explain the the difference without invoking genetics.

As noted, the problem with these environmental toxin hypotheses is that the levels of toxins are too low to explain a 1 SD deviation difference in g, even combined. I think it's a few decades ago since researchers were last trying to explain the AA-EA difference completely in terms of lead exposure.

Although it might be a contributory factor. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Health_and_nutrition

>>6466283
The point of the example is to show that genealogical and genotypic classifications are in principle different. A thought experiment shows this. Nothing unusual, so I'm not sure why you are this angry.

>>6466280

If that's how eugenics works, then it's already been done in the past, and still goes on today. This has already been a thing for decades now in India, but instead of 'dumb' the denominator is 'poor'.

The problem is, most poor people have children before choosing sterilization; which only exacerbates the problem. Poor people have children because a large family is a substitute for social security, and because poorer communities also tend to be more backwards, and thus conflate family size with virility. When sterilization is offered in exchange for economic assistance, poor people often have all their children at once to hedge their bets.

The result is that, whereas before the poor would stagger their birthing across a lifetime, now they attempt to care for multiple children at once and provide even fewer opportunities to the next generation, slowing their economic development.

On the other hand, when poor people actually have education, social security, and distractions in general from family life, they naturally feel less driven toward having more children. India's poorest state, Kerala, has the highest rates of literacy (93%) and lowest rate of chronic malnutrition (22%) in the nation. It is also the state with the lowest rate of population growth.

It is therefore my belief that by uplifting the underclasses in education, culture, diversions from family life (including work and hobby), contraception and secure access to resources, one can naturally normalize population growth across demographics.

There is nothing inherent about the underclasses that cause them to reproduce more than others; under the same living conditions, culture, and access to contraception, the upper classes would have larger families as well.

Creating a society with the groundwork for assortative mating can also support eugenic goals in a much more humane and feasible manner.

I believe in trying to reinstate 'direct' eugenics, you may ultimately confound your own goals.

>>6466305
>There is nothing inherent about the underclasses that cause them to reproduce more than others; under the same living conditions, culture, and access to contraception, the upper classes would have larger families as well.

This is not true. Low g causes both and so we should expect there to be a genetic difference too (on average).

>>6461071
>supposedly good traits, like IQ
>supposedly
The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings (1998)
"Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of.63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of.65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of.63)."

>>6461328
>It's much safer to remove negative traits than to encourage positive traits.
having a lower IQ is a negative trait

>>6461121
>something like 2% is genetically
Stop making things up

In developed countries, the heritability of adult IQ is closer to 0.8
Even this is generously low, considering that IQ tests don't perfectly measure a person's IQ, as a given person can score differently on the same IQ test.

Significantly lower estimates tend to measure children's IQ (which doesn't actually matter much), or tend to come from shitholes where variation in environment is far more severe.

>>6461407
>90% with reference to what?
It's a heritability estimate, m8
It's a measure of the proportion of phenotype that is attributable to variance in genotype
ie. How much of the VARIATION IN TRAITS in a POPULATION is due to VARIATION IN GENES.

>In the US where the overall disparity in quality of life is lower than for example the ROC
You seem to have a great understanding of what heritability is based on what you've just said, but then why don't you understand what he meant, considering the numbers he gave were accurate?

>>6462600
>Also, would regression towards the mean be a barrier to eugenics?
Yes.

>>6462982
>>6463115
>Let nature run its course
>still hold some sliver of hope for humanity
you really shouldn't
dumb people are having more kids
lots of dumb people are immigrating to developed countries and breeding more

>I think the best and perhaps only way to improve humanity as a species is through giving people with desirable traits (strength, health, significant contributions to human knowledge) high incentives to have lots of kids
aka eugenics

>>6463036
>>6463056
>>6463128
>>6463144
>>6463191
>>6463300
We have the heritability estimates for IQ
We know that extreme early intervention studies (like Headstart and the Abecedarian project) fail to produce any lasting IQ gains

Environment matters. Smashing an infants head in with a hammer will certainly lower their IQ.

But we are talking about heritability of traits in developed countries, where things like that are so rare that they become statistically insignificant.

>>6463115
>It's pseudo-science.
Right, I forgot, all humans are the exact same and certain traits cannot be selected for

>>6463355
No. Individuals can do things to be smarter.

>>6464083
Dumb people support less freedom.
Once they take over you will have less freedom.

>>6464124
Because a bunch of people with no medical knowledge practiced inbreeding for hundreds of years selective breeding is invalid?

>>6464315
You're overestimating how important money is and underestimating how important race is, to them.

>>6465163
Yeah Sub Saharan Africa was so good without whitey

>>6465489
>DAMAGE CONTROL
How does he not understand those things?

>>6466435

>>Also, would regression towards the mean be a barrier to eugenics?
>Yes.

So, assortative mating is not an option? What would you suggest?

>>6466355
>Low g causes both and so we should expect there to be a genetic difference too (on average).

[citation needed]

>>6466440
>Yeah Sub Saharan Africa was so good without whitey

is that a scientific claim, or an ideology dressed up with a citation or two?