/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7599445
is there a non-ethical argument for eugenics?

>>7599445

We can't accurately describe the genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors making up any complex trait.

The only way we can accurately apply eugenics is against mendelian medical conditions, which could easily be countered by germ line genetic engineering and/or in vitro fertilisation and gene screening.

Without an accurate way to describe complex traits, it's like trying to stab in the dark.

Let me give you an example. Einstein, widely considered a genius. Had a son with schizophrenia.

If we tried to apply eugenics for genius level intellect, we could fuck over everything, which is why only plebs with shit-tier understanding of biomedical sciences try to promote eugenics at such a primitive stage

yes, in machine learning and biology, we see time and again nature itself to be the best selector

even an obvious defective gene that increases the possibility of X disease, can turn out to increase immunity to some other now less common X bad thing

and in machine learning, one of the biggest crimes is killing off organisms that have low fitness too early

basically evolution and nature knows a hell of a lot better about what is "best" than humans do

and if you plan to do something like "hurr durr black people eugenics" because your girl friend left you for a rich black dude, then maybe the genes of getting rich are being selected over being a faggot 4chan poster

etc,etc, you get the idea

>>7599445
>>7599448
With the mapping of the human genome and the possibility to engineer a human in the near future that is free from the physical and mental ties of our current form it is morally wrong for us NOT to do it. We owe it to future generations.

Now I am not saying that we should start by killing off people with genetic conditions or create a super human or create a human divide. But genetic mutations should be naturally allowed to die off as they are able to prevent them at birth.

Our emotional response is a selfish attitude. Are we jealous of the fact that in the future humanity could potentially never have to worry about physical and mental morbidity ever again? I would say yes and this is illogical and not conducive to human progress.

All those against it are 'the' cancer on society.

If they told me I could father a child that would be made near perfect and never suffer from any disease or naturally caused disability I would take that choice in a heartbeat.

>>7599467
>which could easily be countered by germ line genetic engineering and/or in vitro fertilisation and gene screening.

That's eugenics

>>7599481
So there are no arguments for eugenics that aren't based on some ethical assertion?

>>7599467
>We can't accurately describe the genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors making up any complex trait.
I don't think that's necessary to implement a eugenics program.

I don't think anyone today is in favor of artificially creating a race of superhumans out of pool of carefully selected genomes.

What most people mean by eugenics is simply encouraging people with IQs higher than 100 to have more babies than people with IQs lower than 100.

>>7599481
btw those who choose to have children who they 'know' will suffer the same health problems as them or choose to keep a child that is diagnosed with the same condition before birth are selfish cunts.

>>7599484

Obviously, it is. But I was taking OPs bait and reading "between the lines" that he was referring to more extreme methods of eugenics. Otherwise he wouldn't be posting here would he?

>>7599485
I think you argue eugenics in the same way the Nazi's argued it. That we should kill those who do not meet our ideal of the perfect human form. I do not argue this. I argue that continuing to allow the breeding of imperfect humans as and when the technology to create 'less' imperfect humans comes along it should be allowed to progress without so much moral hand wringing. Of course there should be oversight. Just not from those who have unscientific objectives.

>>7599486
And what I'm saying is that you could try to do that, and it wouldn't make a difference because we don't know 100% what the causes of above average IQ are.

I gave the Einstein example to illustrate a point.

But I guess that's not enough.

If you go over to /fit/ you will often see posts about an anons height, and their mother and fathers height. You will often see outliers, where an anon will be significantly outside the average of his parents height + 2.5 inches (or whatever).

For example, 5'10 father, 5'5 mother, 6'6 son.
Height is complex. If you try and select for above average height people, you may be neglecting factors which result in less fit individuals.

My point here is that it is the same with any trait for which we do not have a sufficiently sophisticated model.

Do you understand?

>>7599494
>And what I'm saying is that you could try to do that, and it wouldn't make a difference because we don't know 100% what the causes of above average IQ are.
We know that IQ's heritability is 0.8, so having a reproduction ratio between people with an IQ>100 and people with an IQ<100 of, say, 2:1, would make a noticeable difference after several generations.

>I gave the Einstein example to illustrate a point.
I'm not talking about outliers, I'm talking about big groups of people reproducing more than other big groups of people. And anyways, quoting a single example as a counter argument is terrible science.

>If you go over to /fit/ you will often see posts about an anons height, and their mother and fathers height. You will often see outliers, where an anon will be significantly outside the average of his parents height + 2.5 inches (or whatever).
Yes, but the majority of people are within the height range of their parents. Height is a heritable trait. So is intelligence.

>Height is complex. If you try and select for above average height people, you may be neglecting factors which result in less fit individuals.
But if you make sure that everyone above 6'2 has more children than people under 6'2, after a few generations people will be taller, regardless of what consequences it might have.

You're arguing against basic genetics.

>My point here is that it is the same with any trait for which we do not have a sufficiently sophisticated model.
But that's a shitty point, unless you can prove that more intelligent people have pathological traits which make them undesirable.

>Do you understand?
Yes, but the more important question : do you understand why you're wrong?

>>7599494
There are base models for what a healthy human is meant to be like. It is true certain physical and mental traits are not always an indicator of what makes a perfect human being. But we do have a baseline otherwise doctors would be telling us it's OK to be overweight/underweight etc.


As long as it falls between a certain 'range' I think we can engineer a human that will be both healthy physically and mentally healthy.

On IQ/intelligence I think that will come eventually too. By the time we are able to engineer humans from the ground up we could probably create geniuses at the same time.

>>7599500
Agreed.

>>7599445
>Is there a non emotional argument against eugenics?
Eugenics is the inherently flawed belief that imperfect people are capable of "designing" more perfect people.
If we actually need eugenics, then that alone should tell you we shouldn't be the ones to steer the human race into the future.

>>7599500
>IQ's heritability is 0.8
Get me a source on that. You can't just pull bullshit out of your ass and expect to build an entire argument on it.

>>7599505
>Get me a source on that.
It's a widely accepted figure...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

>>7599445

>OP would probably be included in the group who didn't make it and got sterilized or killed if eugenics actually was enforced

>>7599507
Wow a wikipedia article which anyone can edit at all. Which shows a correlation of 0.42 between an adult and a biologically related child who live together.

That's almost half of what you claim

Compare that to unrelated adult and child living together which is 0.19. The difference is 0.23, suggesting only 23% is heritable.

This is why I want you to get me a non-retarded source instead of making shit up

>>7599494
You know, genetics has actually progressed far enough that we can explain these outliers. With a quick google search, I can find plenty of articles that explain it. For instance,
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask98

>>7599445
Anti-natalism.

>>7599445
Is there a non emotional argument for any course of action though?
>I think you'll find there's not

>>7599513
>http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask98
That's not a peer reviewed journal

>>7599445
I think the term you are looking for is 'human genome manipulation' which is already underway.

'Eugenics' implies some kind of breeding between people with certain physical traits (whilst culling those with traits that do not conform to a subjective ideal) which is an outdated model.

>>7599512
>Wow a wikipedia article which anyone can edit at all.
Wikipedia's technical articles are pretty reliable. You're grasping at straws.

>Which shows a correlation of 0.42 between an adult and a biologically related child who live together.
If you used your brain and read the source from which these figures come from, you'd realize they are quoted from an article published in 1980. Please refrain from using 35-year old sources to support your ideology, which is all the more inexcusable as the article provides plenty of modern sources on the question.

The fact that you dismiss the entirety of the article based on a single outdated source shows me how biased you are about the subject, and frankly there is little point in discussing if you are already convinced that intelligence is not heritable.

>>7599525
Well, if you look at most of those articles you would see that they don't include a single reference to epigenetics.

Epigenetics is heritable, and genetics (obviously is heritable). So my argument still stands even if we agree that it is 0.8 heritable. We can't account for how much is genetic and how much is epigenetic.

But if you weren't completely retarded and speaking memespeak to support your ideology you would know this shit. Like I said in my first post
> only plebs with shit-tier understanding of biomedical sciences try to promote eugenics at such a primitive stage

But you can dismiss the entirety of epigenetics with because you want to believe some ideology, that's fine, you aren't a biomedical scientist and you probably won't ever publish anything important in the field of brain sciences, so your opinion is worthless; as soon as this thread dies no one will remember what you said here :^)

>>7599530
>Well, if you look at most of those articles you would see that they don't include a single reference to epigenetics.
Until an epigenetic mechanism which affects intelligence is proven, there is little reason to include a discussion about epigenetics in the article.

>Epigenetics is heritable, and genetics (obviously is heritable). So my argument still stands even if we agree that it is 0.8 heritable. We can't account for how much is genetic and how much is epigenetic.
Yes you can, exactly .8 is genetic. You're a bit thick, aren't you?

>But if you weren't completely retarded and speaking memespeak to support your ideology you would know this shit.
You're literally rephrasing (poorly) my (well-written) criticism towards you.

>But you can dismiss the entirety of epigenetics with because you want to believe some ideology,
I'm not dismissing anything, I just base my opinions on fact, not ideology. You're the equivalent of a christfag reproaching me of not taking into account the "divinity factor" in the heritability of intelligence. Until someone proves that God plays a role in the heritability of intelligence, I will assume that He does not. Likewise, until someone proves that there exists an epigenetic cause to the heritability of intelligence (which is unlikely, given the pretty clear-cut results of twin adoption studies), I will assume epigenetics plays no role in the heritability of intelligence.

Such mode of thinking is called "the scientific method". You might want to look it up on wikipedia (oh wait, that's right, you dismiss wikipedia).

>that's fine, you aren't a biomedical scientist and you probably won't ever publish anything important in the field of brain sciences, so your opinion is worthless; as soon as this thread dies no one will remember what you said here :^)
Wow you seem really buttflustered. Shove a dragon dildo up your ass, or do whatever you redditors do to calm down.

>Is there a non emotional argument against eugenics?

There is no reliable way to asses future events both natural and unnatural, with a high statistical certainly as to allow us to take chances in altering a significant portion of the human population genome.

Taking morality out of the equation, if we fuck up we risk major loses because unlike plants humans can not be replaced quickly enough to operating capacity.

Also "traditional" eugenics is sloppy while genetic engineering is better. But both suffer the same flaw in that there is no good model to safely project future generations on. Maybe when quantum computing is a common thing and we can simulate ecosystems on a large scale will eugenics be viable but outside disease/handicap avoidance it's not right now.

>>7599538

I'm not butthurt at all. If I was as much of fuck up as you i'd probably be getting a kick out of this; but I'm feeling apathy.

I just think it's funny that you think that epigenetics is worthless, just because you want to assume genetics is the cause of IQ.

We know that 71 sites of epigenetic methylation correlate with Alzheimer severity, which is associated with mental impairment so that's a simple mechanism right there

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n9/full/nn.3786.html

A large number of epigenetic methylation sites have been correlated with schizophrenia

http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n1/abs/tp2013111a.html

Significant numbers of sites of CpG methylation have been associated with autism

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v19/n4/abs/mp201341a.html

Significant differences in methylation of bipolar disorder patients

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032714003085

Significant epigenetic markers have been found in individuals with major depression disorder

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032713007702

And that's just methylation. Not taking into account acetylation, ubiquitination, histone modification, etc etc etc.

But you can continue to be a faggot and assume you are correct if you'd like :^) I'll just leave these sources here and hopefully someone with an IQ that is actually above 100 will find them useful; because you obviously are on the tail end of the IQ distribution

Notice how these are all recent journals after 2008, since 2008 was around the time a consensus was reached on the definition of epigenetics. But a pleb like you wouldn't know shit about that would you?

Go back to your circle jerk about muh intellectual superiority, muh pure high IQ genetics; and kill yourself whilst you are at it. If you are such a firm believer of eugenics, do us all a favour and remove yourself from our gene pool; if you even are a homo sapien

>>7599485
My problem is your'e asking for people to deliver a non-emotional, and as I see it non-ethical, attack on what is itself an ethical and emotional assertion.

Biobitch here.

So the reason this can't work, as previously stated by another anon, is that the selection process for this sort of evolution would be quite hard and frankly impossible to predict. Let me give an example, humans decide shyness as a trait, perhaps also say something life threatening like sickle cell, and through careful biochemical engineering they eradicate both. People are happier, it's easier to get along with everyone as people are less shy. Less people die form a terrible genetic disease. Then, suddenly, literacy rates drop and even those devoted to it see a sudden reduction in quality. Then every man woman and child on earth dies to a hyper infectious version of malaria. You can't predict without hundreds of years worth of observations and then inflict it on the future population.

However going off on a tangent I can't wait till they have an effective method to do total body gene therapies and implementations without rejection. Cause at that point you can alter your own genes cause you have a choice to have those traits and trade offs, ie. schizophrenia for genius. I'd be one of the first to fuck around with my whole genome. Che sera sera.

>>7599491
My problem is your'e asking for people to deliver a non-emotional, and as I see it non-ethical, attack on what is itself an ethical and emotional assertion.

>>7599445
It kinda doesn't work

>>7599445
Reduced genetic variance reduces adaptive fitness.

>>7599558
http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v1/n7/full/tp201121a.html

Transgenerational impact of intimate partner violence on methylation in the promoter of the glucocorticoid receptor

WOW, another paper on the epigenetics of anxiety disorders based on the mothers environment?!?!

But epigenetics is trash! Let's do what OP wants and ignore epigenetics entirely, because that'll help humanity :^)

>>7599558
Oh look, maternal malnutrition leads to epigenetic changes in genes useful for intelligence. But FUCK EPIGENETICS. EPIGENETICS IS TRASH HUR DURR

>>7599594

>>7599594
IGF2 and intelligence, the same gene effected by malnutrition

>>7599445
Not really, even the reduced diversity argument is silly when properly factored in. Not all diversity is functional, a large chunk of it is deleterious. As long as functional immunologically relevant alleles are preserved eugenics will not have any undesirable side effects.

But even ignoring that really I'd rather live in a society which isn't full of idiots and risk some disease wiping out the species than put up with idiots just so our species may have a better shot at surviving an outbreak. And that's all it is a better shot.

>>7599467
People with average intelligence also have schizophrenic children too. The point is rather moot, as intelligent parents at least have in them the potential to create intelligent offspring while not intelligent only might.

>>7599473
Nature repeatedly fails at selection, its criteria is good enough, not best available. Neither in biology or computing, nature does the best. We have to constantly improve on its blunders, either with medicine or new algos. And intelligence isn't necessarily selected for either. A chad will be more fit than a Tesla.

>>7599558
>not factoring in allelic susceptibility to methylation, acetylation, etc
You do realize there is variation in how epigenetics affects differing alleles on the same gene right?

You can't act like epigenetics makes genetics moot, they work together. An allele that has greater expression will require greater methylation to lower the expression compared to an allele with lower expression and so on.

>>7599642
The reason I brought up Einstein is because some forms of dopamine receptors are linked with greater intelligence, and the same receptors are linked with schizophrenia.

In the right conditions we can have a genius, but in the wrong conditions a schizophrenic.

If we selected for genius, or even just higher than average IQ, we could drastically increase the prevalence of psychiatric disorders; because we can't account for the environmental and epigenetic factors that result in schizophrenia.

If you read into reduced penetrance, when an allele can cause a disorder in an autosomal dominant manner, but it doesn't cause the disorder 100% of the time. It's like due to epigenetics and other factors which mask deficits.

If you look at shamans in African tribes, they have a significantly higher rate of siblings with schizophrenia. And usually a tribe has a very small ratio of shamans to tribes members; otherwise the shamans put too great a strain on the tribe

If we fuck with our alleleic frequencies without knowing what we're doing we could have a dramatic increase of psychiatric disorders placing a large burden on society, the emergence of completely new psychiatric disorders due to drastically altered alleleic frequencies, a massively increased susceptibility to prion diseases and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies due to decreased diversity; and many other hypotheticals that aren't as unlikely as we'd like them to be

>>7599445
you're talking about genetic manipulation? otherwise the nature is doing his work, like right now

>>7599653
I know that. I'm saying that we don't know the extent of genetics, epigenetics and environment yet. It's not a clear dichotomy between genetics and environment.

The sooner we can get the widespread acceptance of epigenetics, the sooner we can make a large amount of progress.

>>7599642

>People with average intelligence also have schizophrenic children too. The point is rather moot, as intelligent parents at least have in them the potential to create intelligent offspring while not intelligent only might.

Not that anon you are responding to but there have been several studies investigating the increase likelihood of more high IQ people suffering from a "pure" type 1 version of bipolar disorder.

>>7599653
>>7599659

Plus intelligence (for example) is the product of the interaction of MANY factors. 30% of genes are brain specific. And their interaction is complex, and intelligence is a product of that interaction.

Any one gene can fuck up everything (e.g. PSEN in alzheimers), but epigenetics alone can fuck shit up too, like those 71 CpGs effect Amyloid processing.

To take a complex phenotype, and jump to the conclusion that it is solely the product of a genotype is pretty retarded; you must agree?

>>7599445
Yes: artificially trying to further certain genes isn't practical enough for it to be successful. Just let darwinism work normally.

>>7599654
So the problem is once again sexual reproduction being too chaotic and unreliable.

Really we should be working to make sexual reproduction obsolete. It's too chaotic and allows for too much to get out of hand. We should literally build people from the best parts and gestate them under optimal conditions. This way we can control for those right conditions and have an Einstein 99.9999% of every time.

>>7599665
>To take a complex phenotype, and jump to the conclusion that it is solely the product of a genotype is pretty retarded; you must agree?
Yes, just like excluding it.

>>7599667

The problem is trying to apply what we think are useful artificial selective pressures, when they could completely fuck shit up.

I mean, just google Alzheimers epidemic and look how fucked we are. If we messed up eugenics and had an increased rate of neurodegenerative and/or psychiatric disorder, we may not be able to cope with it.

>>7599671

I'm not saying excluding genotypes am I? I'm saying to take a realistic approach. Why are you trying to imply that I'm against genetics? Read what I said. Genetics AND epigenetics AND environment are important.

Stop trying to strawman from a weak position

>>7599671
>>7599674


Also,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673670918489

A gene which increases IQ and causes torsion dystonia.

Just an example of how trying to increase IQ can fuck up our gene pool

>>7599674
>The problem is trying to apply what we think are useful artificial selective pressures, when they could completely fuck shit up.
Things are already fucked up and could get more fucked up if we do not make the effort to fix it.

> If we messed up eugenics and had an increased rate of neurodegenerative and/or psychiatric disorder, we may not be able to cope with it.
And if we got it right we would solve the problem. Perhaps we need a two pronged approach, half the population under eugenics while the other half can be outside.

>I'm saying to take a realistic approach.
You're taking the status quo approach which has spawned mediocrity and this current epidemic.

>>7599686
Just an example that the goal has to be a matter of both health and intelligence.

>>7599689

Well if you want to fix it realistically, you could get a PhD in one of the neuroscience fields and work towards our understanding of disease etiology. Instead of just rolling a dice and crossing fingers that we get it right and don't fuck shit up.

I'm sure most people would rather go with the route which isn't likely to fuck us up (looking for medical and education interventions for neurological and psychiatric disorders) instead of going for the minority view that taking a gamble is worth ruining our progress.

The status quo has brought us close to treating a large number of diseases, no more polio because of vaccination for example, rather than just killing anyone who presented with polio

>>7599692
Sure, but that study was done in 1970. If we undertook eugenics in the 1950s, we could have fucked up everything by now. And I'm sure in 65 years people will look back and laugh at us, how we thought we had it all figured out, and how intelligence is actually the ability of an individual to access the luminiferous ether or some bullshit.


Having intellectual humility and recognizing that we know nothing isn't a bad thing.

>>7599693
What's that about strawmanning?

First I never suggested killing. I'm all for developing medicine and gene therapy.

Second you're the one who wants to role the dice. You favor sexual reproduction as is, that's rolling the dice. I favor controlling for things, that reduces uncertainty.

>>7599481
>We owe it to future generations.

Sorry future non GM humans, we owe it to you to make sure you're never born.

>>7599698
No actually, because those people would still have torsion dystonia and be on the short list. We could've eradicated torsion dystonia by now but thanks to your let nature take care of it approach it is still around.

>>7599700
I'm not saying you support killing, I'm making a general exaggeration.

And if you want to argue the merits of sexual selection without gene screening over the merits of artificial selection, I guess all I can say is that we don't have enough data to make a definitive conclusion. That's all I can say. I'm just saying that we don't have a good enough model to make a selection criteria for eugenics that has minimal risk, so why are we talking about eugenics when we should be talking about how to make an accurate model?

>>7599711
>so why are we talking about eugenics when we should be talking about how to make an accurate model?
Bingo. You're better than alright.

>>7599705

Yes, actually.

Dystonia is a recessive trait, whereas the IQ increase isn't. People with 2 copies of the allele get dystonia. If we allowed people who had the high IQ, who were asymptomatic to pass on their genes, then we would have a higher number of torsion dystonia patients due to random assortment of the genetic information.

It's similar to sickle cell anaemia being a homozygous condition, and the heterozygous condition being resistant to malaria with no major downside

>>7599700

Why not start with plants, just until people see how good it is?

For example, you could show them the benefits of having a homogenous population, free from the genetic diversity mutation inevitably leads to.

Bananas, for example, are all grown from cuttings, and so are genetically identical. This provides many benefits, such as oh wait, they're going extict previsely because they lack genetic diversity. I guess maybe we should leave well enough alone until we understand this shit a whole lot better.

>>7599713
Yup. So with that in mind, how can we accurately get an assessment of the epigenome by brain region without taking a biopsy or waiting until post mortem?

I ask, because once we can get accurate epigenome data, we can begin to refine our model

>>7599715
>>7599720
In all these cases homozygosity is the problem. Hence back to my previous point, sexual reproduction is the problem as it can result in said offspring. If we spliced heterozygous alleles onto that loci before birth it solves the issue. Really the natural approach is the least best, we shouldn't in good moral conscience allow a baby to be gestated without some screening and gene manipulation to fix nature's many blunders.

>>7599735
Still in that case, you can end up with combinations of alleles on different loci which result in a worse outcome. For example, if you accidentally selected for two pairs of alleles which together would mess up everything without know the effect of these alleles in combination.

There are many reasons why things like this won't occur in nature. For example, people with significantly different MHC groups are genetically distant enough that they are unlikely to have adverse alleleic interactions. People with different MHC groups find each others pheromones more attractive than those with whom they are more genetically similar. As a product, individuals naturally tend towards individuals who are less genetically similar to themselves, who also present a high degree of fitness.

If you didn't know this, you could fuck shit up big time. And it's not unreasonable to believe that there are many other factors which exist which we can't account for, which have important effects on sexual selection.

Which again, is why we need to improve our model.

>>7599753
Another example is this http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081237

Perceived Intelligence Is Associated with Measured Intelligence in Men but Not Women

Women are actually capable of accurately assessing a males intelligence. That coupled with olfactory differentiation of genetic distance is a good way of females selecting males with whom they can have healthy intelligent offspring.

It makes sense that men and women have a natural ability to select good partners, because those who could had successful offspring, and those who couldn't select good partners had unsuccessful offspring.

Consequentially, over time, its not unreasonable to think that people evolved to select good mates consciously and subconsciously.

I don't know about all of you, but the smell of nice pheromones is a powerful stimulus for me

>>7599753
> you can end up with combinations of alleles on different loci which result in a worse outcome
Well we wouldn't touch the loci we don't know anything about.

>MHC
Yeah and the upper limit of how many HLA alleles in an individual hasn't naturally been reached. But with some splicing we could try it. Also screening would ensure it too, do a better job then scents which are riddled with perfumes.

>you could fuck shit up big time.
Like nature does all the time, notice how the majority of species that have ever existed are extinct. Really nature's track record is far worse than any attempts at eugenics.

>Which again, is why we need to improve our model.
Thank goodness for BGI doing this work for us while we just kvetch about it in the West.

Anyway I better get back to studying. You're right precautions must be taken, which can be solved by not putting all our eggs in one basket. Small eugenic societies would provide data while attempting this. Better than the approach of putting all our eggs in nature's basket, that is a gamble too and you should acknowledge that. Now when gambling, always set something aside. Don't go all in on anything.

>>7599467
>We can't accurately describe the genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors making up any complex trait.
Selective breeding does not require you to know why an organism has a particular trait, just that it is inherited.
>The only way we can accurately apply eugenics is against mendelian medical conditions
Uhh, no. A trait does not need to be Mendelian in order to be selected for.

>>7599565
>You can't predict without hundreds of years worth of observations and then inflict it on the future population.
We have bred animals and plants for thousands of years for specific traits and they didn't all die out just because their genetic diversity was slightly reduced.
>Che sera sera
It's Que Sera, Sera

>>7599773
>Women are actually capable of accurately assessing a males intelligence.
And yet they choose dumb Chads over Einsteins all the time.

>It makes sense that men and women have a natural ability to select good partners
Which is deeply flawed. You should know how imperfect mate selection is, don't pretend it is perfect. Symmetry and health aren't correlated yet that is what most people go for.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051380000060X

Anyway I'm out.

>>7599775

Well a species doesn't always go extinct because it is a poor adaptation. A species can go extinct because its constituent members eventually differentiate enough to not fulfil that categorisation any more.

Nature does mess stuff up, true; just not on the scale of which we are capable of (as in 2 atomic bombs in the last 100 years). Whereas, as far as I am aware, the last similar scenario was the Tunguska event in 1908.

And nature has produced us; whilst we are incapable of even producing a living organism from scratch.

>>7599782

> Selective breeding does not require you to know why an organism has a particular trait, just that it is inherited.

Exactly. How do you know if a trait is inherited if you don't know how much is epigenetic, genetic or enviromental?

> Uhh, no. A trait does not need to be Mendelian in order to be selected for.

Read my post again. In order to ACCURATELY apply eugenics, it has to be a simple trait, like a mendelian trait

>>7599783
Seeyou.

I know it's not perfect, I'm just saying it's relatively good.

And the Chad>Einstein is just an over simplification by a vocal minority, their opinion is over represented on 4chan, where the most "normie board" /fit/ frequently complains about muh no gf and calling "big guys" dyels

>>7599786
> How do you know if a trait is inherited if you don't know how much is epigenetic, genetic or enviromental?
It doesn't matter. Selective breeding (historically) and natural selection are only concerned with outcomes (phenotype). Genotype is only a means to an end.
>Read my post again. In order to ACCURATELY apply eugenics, it has to be a simple trait, like a mendelian trait
Oh, you said "ACCURATELY". That changes everything. Maybe you could define "ACCURATELY" first.

>>7599804

Accurately is an adverb that means with few mistakes.

For example, assuming that a high IQ is entirely inheritable when it could be the product of a medical condition such as a tumour in the nucleus basalis; which would result in less than desirable heritable components being passed on due to a lack of ACCURACY.

You could select for phenotype and not get optimal results because of a lack of ACCURACY, in which case you may lose an allele which was exceptional due to inadequate selection

unintended consequences.
for example, manlets live longer.

>>7599819
Selective breeding doesn't require each individual to be perfect. The goal is an increase in frequency of desirable traits, which can be measured.

A propensity for brain tumors would usually negatively impact IQ and be something you'd want to select against.

>>7599445

not really no

>>7599448

There are many non-ethical arguments for a great deal of different things.