/sci/ - Science & Math

The Nazis ruined eugenics' reputation. Doesn't help that modern proponents of eugenics are often edgy. Basically it's a decent idea with had publicity.

Nazis? Halldol forcing psychiatrist didnt?

>>8247801
>>8247810
To be honest, I consider it is the way that one would 'measure' genetic superiority. It should be based on physical traits, rather, how well someone does within various fields.

I believe in eugenics yet sadly there is no humane way to do it.

>>8247826
Yes there is, we just lack the money. A very easy way would be to give grants to high-IQ couples so they can have kids earlier.

>>8247793
>Implying you, or anyone else is mentally capable of picking the right genes
>Implying it's even possible to make good predictions
>Implying it's a good thing to selectively breed humans

Many people are stupid, but people like you are extraordinarily stupid.

Are you into genetics purely because you know you won't get to reproduce otherwise?
There's a reason you remain a virgin, and unfortunately it's beyond your mental abilities.

>>8247819
>>8247843
>Implying that genetics doesn't matter.
>Implying you know anything about the poster.
>Attacking the person, rather than the argument.

I'm stupid? Re-read your post and re-evaluate your life.

because is moraly wrong and morality is what made the western world superior to brown people.

t. brown taco person.

>>8247888
>because is moraly wrong and morality is what made the western world superior to brown people.
What're you on about? Overt morality is what is destroying the Western world.

>>8247894
I don't mean modern SJW morality, but the one that made the western world great.
think of classical western values up until mid 19 century.

>>8247899
You mean the morality which supported eugenics? I see, your point foiled itself.

>>8247829
>thinking that only intelligence matters in eugenics
What about physical appearance and the lack of disabilities? Like autism which I have and would rather prefer it not exist.

>>8247899
Values are spooks, anon. They aren't real.

>>8247906
wait, are we talking full genocide eugenics or simply not allowing to reproduce?

both are diferent.

>>8247921
Reproductive stratification.

Why would you breed humans like you would dogs? Have you seen what's happening to purebred dogs?

>>8247932
>Why would you breed humans like you would dogs?
Assuming the method I would promote.

>Have you seen what's happening to purebred dogs?
Assuming that humanity is at such, or would ever have such a genetic bottle neck and limit in biodiversity.

I would advise a system of reproductive stratification (as mentioned here: >>8247925). For instance, only allowing academics to reproduce with academics. To avoid genetic bottle necking, someone of a labouring class could become an academic and thus be eligible to reproduce within the academic category.

>>8247921
Not allowing to reproduce is not too different from genocide.

>>8247943 see >>8247942.
It allows for movement between the categories.

let's be real.
simple marriage between couples could stadistically irrelevant when you have 7 billion people.

telling everyone on earth how to reproduce will mean literally a global north korea world goverment.

fucking retards.

>>8247957
Your fallacy today is:
>Hyperbole
and
>False dichotomy
This has been a public service announcement for the Ministry of Anonisafaggot.

>>8247969
how else are u going to make a profound impact over the world population without a totalitarian eugenic program?

>>8247988 see >>8247942.

>>8247990
good luck convincing the democratic nations to give you power over it.

even communisn failed after two dictators.

>>8247994
It is something called social spheres, allowing for passive control.

>>8247994
>even communisn
Because communism is self-defeating.

>>8247997
how are u going to stop an smart guy fucking a dumb hot bimbo in some college party?

>>8248002
Social disgrace, or legislate to make the bastard child illegitimate.

>>8248009
>social disgrace
that still didn't stop breeding of whites with blacks in america in the apartheid.

>legislate
that would get votten out of human rights concerns.

You faggot need to understand most children are results of being drunk in some college party between two random people.

>>8248023
>that still didn't stop breeding of whites with blacks in america in the apartheid.
My system wouldn't discriminate based on race, rather ability within certain categories.

>that would get votten out of human rights concerns.
Considering there are several Western governments looking to overturn human rights legislation and there are many countries who do not adhere, your point is?

>You faggot need to understand most children are results of being drunk in some college party between two random people.
Citation?

>>8247942
>I would advise a system of reproductive stratification
Hi, Plato.

>>8248042
Χαῖρε!

>>8248037
most children aren't because you wanted a children.

most of the times is because:
some dumb teenager got pregnant because his older pedo couple fucked her.
some rape.
some dumb slut fucked random people in some college party.
some couple didn't use preservatives.

how are u going to control that shit?

what if some dumb bimbo gets pregnant over a high IQ alpha chad?

>>8248050
Via enforcing social stratification and gentrification of those within the 'higher stratum'.

>>8248058
that doesn't stop people from fucking other people even if the other person is from a lower social class.

I'm sure even indians fucked themselves among castes.

>>8247793
Yes, I always considered a selective genocide to be the way to go, but all this globalization and "muh feerings" are sadly getting in the way.

>>8248066
That may be true, however, if the majority of the 'higher stratum' are dissuaded from reproducing with the 'lower stratum' you can still enforce eugenics within those who are worthy of remaining within their stratum. Ergo, those who breed below their strata are less likely to have children within the 'higher stratum' of society.

>>8248068
Too true.

>>8248071
how are u going to convince alpha chads from fucking hot dumb bimbos?

again, you need to convince them your system is better.

imagine this.
your system gives you a really average and ugly girl and tells you to have offspring with her.

you love a dumb lower caste bimbo that is 9/10 at worst, she also loves you.

do you think he will support your system?

>>8248079
Eliminate the bimbos.

>>8248082
nice to see fellow r9k always making these threads about controlling female sexuality.

nice.

>>8248079
I really want to say death squads, but they're bad.

>>8248079
The point is, it doesn't matter if we lose a minority of such genetic information into a lower strata because of two things:

1) His children are less likely to return to his strata or any of the higher stratum.

2) If this current trend of universal acceptance has any merit. A combination of those lower stratum genetics may result in someone of superior genetics, who has proven to be so via entering a high enough level of which ever field, to be considered higher stratum genetics.

In other words, the loss does not affect those in the higher stratum and that genetic information should be replaced by those of a lower stratum qualifying to enter a higher strata.

>>8248079
I really want to say death squads, but they're bad.

>>8248079
The point is, it doesn't matter if we lose a minority of such genetic information into a lower strata because of two things:

1) His children are less likely to return to his strata or any of the higher stratum.

2) If this current trend of universal acceptance has any merit. A combination of those lower stratum genetics may result in someone of superior genetics, who has proven to be so via entering a high enough level of whichever field to be considered higher stratum genetics.

In other words, the loss does not affect those in the higher stratum and that genetic information should be replaced by those of a lower stratum qualifying to enter a higher strata.

>>8248087
you haven't been telling me how are u going to make people change from our current system to yours.

keep in mind there's some shit called human rights.

>>8247843
here's the (you)

>>8248079
>average and ugly girl
those won't be among the higher caste, only smart hotties.

>>8248094
By making passive changes to alter the social mechanics of society. Just like liberals have been doing, most notably since the mid-1900s.

>>8248095
genetic diversity is better than a caste system.

also society need low paying jobs that are suited for the dumb people.

also society doesn't need more than some few percentage of the population becomming elite geniuses.

>>8248100
because their ideas are about having more freedom.
your ideas are about limiting freedom.

at least try to fuck random girls rather than being an angry virgin.

>>8248106
>more freedom
'Freedom'. Nice subjectivity.

>at least try to fuck random girls rather than being an angry virgin.
Projecting must be a defence mechanism.

>>8248095
>mocking non-racist people in this thread

Do you really think that such an opinion is the result of trolling? Are you really that deluded?
If you believe in eugenics you're retarded. It's that clear, and if you don't get it there's no hope for you.

>>8248106
>caste system
That would still need labourers labouring and so on; so that makes this point mute:
>also society need low paying jobs that are suited for the dumb people.

>>8248106
Virgin argument beats everything. Even a porn star.

>>8248111
you sound like a bitter r9k angry about chads stealing all the hot girls.

also you also seem unaware IQ is not 100% hereditable.

also you don't seem to understand there's high IQ black children in africa that are getting MIT grants.

>>8248115
the current system allow for dumb males to become truck drivers or police people.

smart people tend to gather in math, science, art, teology, philosophy.

the current system works pretty well.

we should be simply giving free grants to high IQ poor people from shitholes to move to the first world and help advance science.

you don't need all humans to become smarter.

I'm 130 IQ but I don't see the point on genociding dumb people.

>>8248130
>you sound like a bitter r9k angry about chads stealing all the hot girls.
No point, simply just an insult.

>also you also seem unaware IQ is not 100% hereditable.
But a large portion of intellect is based upon genetics and that is why the system allows for movement between stratification.

>also you don't seem to understand there's high IQ black children in africa that are getting MIT grants.
You clearly cannot read as I've said it isn't based on race, it is based upon how well they'd done within certain fields. So those genius level children of African decent with degrees from MIT would be in the higher academic strata.

>>8248130
>the current system allow for dumb males to become truck drivers or police people.
So does mine, it also promotes the reproduction of the successful.

>smart people tend to gather in math, science, art, teology, philosophy.
No shit, well done, Sherlock. I seek to promote this.

>the current system works pretty well.
Citation?

>we should be simply giving free grants to high IQ poor people from shitholes to move to the first world and help advance science.
Well done, that would be an aspect of the system I am promoting.

>you don't need all humans to become smarter.
Based upon what? Your feels? Intellect is important in human innovation.

>I'm 130 IQ but I don't see the point on genociding dumb people.
Don't lie.

>>8248130
>you sound like a bitter r9k angry about chads stealing all the hot girls.
No point, simply just an insult.

>also you also seem unaware IQ is not 100% hereditable.
But a large portion of intellect is based upon genetics and that is why the system allows for movement between stratification.

>also you don't seem to understand there's high IQ black children in africa that are getting MIT grants.
You clearly cannot read as I've said it isn't based on race, it is based upon how well they've done within certain fields. So those genius level children of African descent with degrees from MIT would be in the higher academic strata.

>>8248130
>the current system allow for dumb males to become truck drivers or police people.
So does mine, it also promotes the reproduction of the successful.

>smart people tend to gather in math, science, art, teology, philosophy.
No shit, well done, Sherlock. I seek to promote this.

>the current system works pretty well.
Citation?

>we should be simply giving free grants to high IQ poor people from shitholes to move to the first world and help advance science.
Well done, that would be an aspect of the system I am promoting.

>you don't need all humans to become smarter.
Based upon what? Your feels? Intellect is important in human innovation.

>I'm 130 IQ but I don't see the point on genociding dumb people.
Don't lie.

>>8247793
Because anyone who gave the field any serious study did so by jumping to conclusions about how the generations would turn out instead of running experiments and drawing their conclusions afterward. Its study methods have always been a mockery of the scientific method. It's no wonder the athletes Nazi Germany selected still lost to African contestants when they hosted the Olympics. Aryan superiority was never fairly tested in an environment that eliminated confirmation bias.

Even then, eugenics has already been practiced ad nauseum by royal families. Even when the children don't wind up weak and broken from inbreeding, the lower genetic diversity leads to a lower rate of disease immunity, slower and more divergent evolution from the mainland of humans, and eventual signs of inbreeding where there was none. There's a reason people descended from island nations like the UK and Japan are characterized by pale skin and fucked up teeth. We need the genetic diversity to maintain a healthy gene pool.

Still, as long as we do it by making experiments to inform our predictions instead of just making predictions, it's an area that could be worth studying. That just never seems to have happened.

>>8248050
>Preservatives
HAHA OH WOW MY SIDES.
Yes anon, I want to make my dick erectile for an eternity

In the face of genetic engineering and augmentation, the diminishing returns of eugenics isn't worth the economic investment.

>>8247826

In a world where fucking misquotes who are a thousandth your size can literally throw down permanent disabilities (Zika, Malaria, etc.) that would take centuries upon centuries to produce biological protection from (with some retarded trade off) through eugenics why would you still believe in it?

Seriously I'm genuinely curious, I can some what understand the idea behind breeding the "undesirables" out or making a stronger "stock" but nature will literally blind side your ass for thinking you could game the system without suffering some penalty for it.

>>8248140
bro, read a book on economics.
your system will fail.

centralized shit usually fails pretty hard.
simply let the free market to fix it.

simply let the high IQ people to get into the best systems.

we don't need billions of math geniuses.
I'm sure if we only use the top 1% of people into STEM fields, there would be like 70 million scientists.

top 1% is like 140 IQ people.

there's no shortgage of smart people, even by simple math there's like 200 million black people with high IQ (over 120).

there's enough people for even the top fields to be filled with millions.

we need to help develop poor nations and let their elite people to work together to help build a more nice world.

>>8248149
This is why I promoted it upon this base, along with race neutrality based upon overt accomplishment: >>8247942.

>>8248154
"bro, read a book on economics.
your system will fail.

centralized shit usually fails pretty hard.
simply let the free market to fix it.

simply let the high IQ people to get into the best systems.

we don't need billions of math geniuses.
I'm sure if we only use the top 1% of people into STEM fields, there would be like 70 million scientists.

top 1% is like 140 IQ people.

there's no shortgage of smart people, even by simple math there's like 200 million black people with high IQ (over 120).

there's enough people for even the top fields to be filled with millions.

we need to help develop poor nations and let their elite people to work together to help build a more nice world."
It is almost as if you have no reading comprehension.

This is why I promote it upon this base, along with race neutrality based upon overt accomplishment: >>8247942.

>>8248130
>art, teology, philosophy
>smart
kek

>>8248165
bro, nature already makes a better job than what some faggots at some central office can do.

there's millions of people even among the top 1% of people.

>>8248176
dismissal of other intelectual enterprises diferent than STEM is the mark of the mediocre intelectual.

>>8248180
>some central office
>Has no plan to do such a thing, something anon would've discovered if he had reading comprehension.

>implying you know what traits are desirable at all times by everyone to deserve to exist
All genes are what they are. They are supposed to be there. The idea of trade offs and antagonistic pleuotrophies suggests that every trait is in place because it was exchanged or the gene shifted away from a less desirable trait. So there really are no "perfect" genotypes for all situations. Your "strong" human lines might have an IQ of 160 but because you had no idea what you're doing you bred individuals that possess deleterious mutations and their kids now die from a slight breeze. How often traits are expressed is often a result of epigenetic effects anyway. Are you going to find people with only certain methylation patterns that are heritable? Certain pathways that are enhanced for your "good traits"? The whole idea that you can do what nature does with humans on a broad scale is ridiculous we can't even get it right in most animals

>>8248222
>They are supposed to be there
Part of God's great plan? :^)

>Implying we shouldn't strive to combine successful genetics, ignoring the fact that attraction is based in the evolutionary purpose of finding 'good genes'.

>>8248222
>>8248237
Also, movement between stratification based upon successfulness, decreasing genetic bottle necking.

>>8247843
Example of a person who shouldnt be allowed to reproduce

Here's a meme.

>>8248755
Time to being diversity to Israel then.

>>8248149
>people descended from island nations like the UK and Japan are characterized by pale skin and fucked up teeth

>be from new zealand
>go to university in america and notice these things
>we have a higher instance of bigger foreheads and sunken eyes, too
Sheeeeeit.

>>8248755
Nice meme, I'd rate it 10/10.

>>8248755
I give this meme 14/88

>>8247919
stale meme

>>8248755

>>8247943
If someone doesn't even exist they can't be murdered, you idiot. Being murdered right now or not even being born in the first place: which one you think it hurts less?

>>8248050
By sterelizing the bimbo.

>>8248755
I don't get it.

>>8247793

How can you believe in genetic superiority, but be against race mixing? In every single living creature, genetic diversity is key to superiority. Then there's also the heterosis-effect where hybrids will turn out much morw superior than the sum of the best attributes of the parents.
Really, everyone should look for a partner of another race to breed humans with the most potential.

>>8248050
>some couple didn't use preservatives.
>preservatives.
Yes anon I want my dick to be erect forever..

>>8247793
Probably for some of the same reasons people don't approve of breeding dogs to have certain traits. It could be detrimental to the group in the long run.
Natural selection works because it has no goal or intention. Artificial selection doesn't because it aims to specialize, which can be a hazard when adapting. Generalization is where it's at.

>>8247829
>high-IQ
>high-IQ
>high-IQ
Not even funny

>>8251376
>could be detrimental to the group
it could be not

>>8248152
>>8251369
Likely that anon is not a native speaker of English and got confused by false friends.

>>8251450
Weigh the pros and the cons.
>"superior" genetically fit race
>inbred mentally unstable people

>>8247882
>>8248095
>>8248732

Samefag

>>8251455
You have no proof of that, you are just assuming we are going to do it wrong, which is scaremongering. Please go to /x/

>>8251460

>>8251462
Science:
>let's see how we can do eugenics without the shortcomings

/x/:
>WAAAH GENES ARE MAGIC, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S HAS TO BE ORGANIC, I ONLY EAT ORGANIC FOOD XD

>>8251465
Just putting my opinion out there, no need to turn me into a denialist hippy-dippy strawman.


Also this. Eugenics is the way of the past. Genetic engineering is where it's at

>>8251473
Eugenics and genetic engineering are synonyms.

>>8251482
Always thought eugenics meant allowing certain beings to breed, while sterilizing other with "unfit" genes.
Also this.

>>8251353
Maybe read the post? I typed that I would base it upon successfulness, not race: >>8247942.

See this: >>8251376.

See this, nothing to do with race: >>8251455.

See this: >>8251462.

>>8247942
If the system works, labouring class members should not be able to join into the academics since they are now running away brain-wise.

>>8251451
and now you tell him, that he shouldnt trust his friends. Not anons day

>>8251604
Indeed, however, as I can imagine, I would have some retard state the antithesis. Therefore, I am willing to make the allowance, should they be able to accomplish greater things than their genetics, good on them. A true flower from the rough.

>>8251485
that definition also fits genetic engineering is what anon is telling you.

>>8251619
I think, think your fear of retards stating things on the internet marks you as a coward and an idiot. I wish you good look in your attempt to convince others of your ideas though.

>>8251632
'Fear of' because I grant inclusivity to the notion? Methinks the Philistine projects too much.

>>8251624
Genetic Engineering: the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.

Eugenics: a set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population.

>>8251653
you made an allowance. You presented to impressionable children a vision of the world, that you tailored to retards in some way.

>>8251712
the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material: practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population

>>8251752
One implies it to be merely tweaking, the other seeks to "improve." There is no up or down the "evolutionary ladder," there is only change. We arose by nature and "chance," and so nature and "chance" must find a way. When one tampers with nature, they run the risk of creating a monster, figurative or otherwise.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/evolution/could-humans-be-bred-for-traits-t25615.html

>>8251764
none of that is refuting what I said.

>One implies it to be merely tweaking, the other seeks to "improve."
both change. The first can be drastic, the second can be just a tweak. "improvement" is relative.
>There is no up or down the "evolutionary ladder,"
There is if you put it upright
> We arose by nature and "chance," and so nature and "chance" must find a way.
My parents wanted me
> When one tampers with nature, they run the risk of creating a monster, figurative or otherwise.
Also gave me glasses and my marks got noticably better

>>8251829
When I stated "genetic engineering" in the first post I made, I didn't mean sterilizing certain people and forcing others to breed. I meant creating a new species by directly inserting the new trait directly and ensuring it can be passed on, rather than breed several pairs of humans for that trait.

>>8251845
that may be what you meant, but eugenics is a part of genetic engineering.
It is unclear to me what "the new trait" is, but modified rice doesnt taste much different from even natural uncultivated rice.

From Wikipedia:
"Darwin was intrigued by his half-cousin Francis Galton's argument, introduced in 1865, that statistical analysis of heredity showed that moral and mental human traits could be inherited, and principles of animal breeding could apply to humans. In The Descent of Man, Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, 'the noblest part of our nature,' and factors such as education could be more important."

>>8251863
I agree that eugenics is a form of genetic engineering to an extent. I thought you were saying the opposite, that genetic engineering was a form of eugenics.

I meant more like inserting a more exaggerated form of some existing trait. Like how you could adjust a dog's DNA to produce a more exaggerated feature in one generation, or do it the old-fashioned way and breed them, though this may lead to a few undesirable traits

>>8247793
>Why is the notion of genetic superiority and the promotion of it such a taboo?
Because it's historically connected with pseudoscience and totalitarian oppression. People reasonably fear that this pattern will repeat itself in the future.

>>8251898
and because its misunderstood. "superiority" is relative. Dumb people might be better under continued stress like in war. Actual superior genetics would be to have the widest possible range. And the jews are promoting that.

Cause it's not worth it

>>8247793
Well no one can decide what makes better genes and what metrics should be used for one, or how to measure them.

So say we just go on physical fit. Do we filter out those with poor physical genetics? What do we clearly define as "poor"? Anyone born lame? Anyone born with asthma or epilepsy or bad allergies? Anyone too short or too weak? Not fast enough or have a weak endurance?

Or do we go on intelligence? How are you measuring that? IQ tests that are bunk after a number? Education which is based more on socioeconomic factors? Or more recent theories that intelligence should be categorized between logical, spatial, linguistic, interpersonal, naturalist, kinaesthetic, musical and intrapersonal? Which forms of intelligence do we value most? Practical? Analytical? Creative? Emotional? How do you decide which could help the human race most when you don't know which the human race would need most in 1000s of years?

Ultimately it's best to leave it up to how can fuck and survive. Life and genetics aren't passed on because they're cool or make society better or anything like that. They're passed on because you could survive in the environment and fuck. Nature doesn't give a shit if you go to mars with that information or not. Eugenics is a stupid idea because it's assuming that what we want of humanity is what humanity needs. It could very well be that we want to be super brains but in the future we need to be faster runners. And above all our genes need diversity so fucking that up on purpose is retarded.

>>8251951
You should see this: >>8247942.

>>8251951
It should be up to the parents to decide what engineering or selection they do.

Parents already choose whether a baby is brought into life or not. They should have the choice to determine what engineering or embryo selection parameters are used.

>>8251956
>most replies are someone linking it all "see what said here"

Seems like you're over promoting some shit plan man.

If you could pull someone from labor to academia, why not then level up academia for all?

You'd need to argue that those in academics are genetically superior and worthy of being the ones used in eugenics. If any schmuck can be educated up to academia level than you're arguing that it's not genetic. So why bother?

And you can't bottleneck and throw in a couple others for diversity. That's not how genetic diversity happens. Christ you can learn that from watching bullshit science channel.


All the same I still question why academics for the top? And which academics? Any field of study? Can a community college be equal to ivy league? How do you measure which study/school is best to genetically advance? What about socioeconomic factors? What if you make this law so to survive now near everyone in the world joins academia in name only, pushes a paper out just so they can have kids and fuck as well? Academia in name alone becoming a meaningless metric.

>>8247793
Three words.

MAH SIX GORRILLION

>>8251982
Oh I got it
thats why we should select parents

>>8251997
It's a simple thing to understand.

Currently parents pass their genes on when they reproduce together.

There is no reason to force them to pass on certain genes if they do not want to.

Hence parents, who already create new humans, should have the rights to more carefully choose which genes to pass on.

In this situation, genetic technology becomes empowering to parents to have more control over what genetics they choose to give.

>>8251982
oh a gattaca like scifi world?

You might as well be asking about magic hovercrafts in moral taboo of flying.

jesus we know so little about which traits are linked with which parts of the dna, and so many diseases are recessive, you'd need a genetic make up of both parents, and gene editing is such bullshit right now. It's just overall doubtful we'll ever be at that precision level where you can even decide between blue eyes and green let alone important things like diseases and height and intelligence. Jesus especially the last given what little we know of the brain right now. Along with how any one gene can effects multiple unrelated ones, just look up pleiotropy. And still cultural a bunch of parents deciding on some genes being superior and filtering out any variation would lead to a loss in genetic diversity.

>>8252011
It's exponentially improving.

>>8252011
Also, there are billions of humans today, more than ever before in history.

The worry about losing genetic diversity is like worrying about overpopulating Mars.

>>8252050
Assuming you actually do sterilizer undesirables nah loss of genetic diversity could slowly fuck us.

>>8252030
I assume you mean our study of genetics is improving, and linked the results of a study showing genetic association as proof, but I don't think it's exponential. It only appears that way because we've just now gotten into studying it so much. And much of what we are learning, that study included (since it had, at most, 45% variance of any trait explained by SNPs), is that it's not any single base pair that effects any single trait alone.

So it's not "ah let's fuck with this specific gene variation and you're baby will be free of cancer" and more likely "fuck we fucked with this gene to get your kid 6'6, and he is totally gonna be 6'6 so good job on that, but now he's got a micropenis and might be predisposed to ADHD, who the fuck knows. ask the neurologists, they understand this shit more maybe. fuck it. he might not even end up 6'6 if you don't feed him right. or smoke while pregnant. or eat too much. or don't get any calcium."

>>8251508

Yeah but you're only proving my point. The most healthy dogs are those that are not bred specifically, but the mixed race ones with a lot of genetic diversity.
Maybe you should've read my post. I'm also not about race. I'm about race mixing to have the next generation take the healthiest traits from all races

>>8252231
Nothing in your post is remotely true.

Actual worker breeds such as Belgian malinois are prized because the breeders have kept certain instincts and prey drives. These behaviors are instrumental for training them for military combat roles and for police work.

>I'm about race mixing to have the next generation take the healthiest traits from all races

This line shows a complete lack of basic intelligence and understanding of anything. Mating does not take "the best of both parents" and mix them together.

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/biracial-asian-americans-and-mental-health?id=8732

A new study of Chinese-Caucasian, Filipino-Caucasian, Japanese-Caucasian and Vietnamese-Caucasian individuals concludes that biracial Asian Americans are twice as likely as monoracial Asian Americans to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder.
IF your logic was actually true Brazil would have the longer living population and not some inbred Japanese islanders.