/sci/ - Science & Math

Eugenics will literally solve 99% of the world's problems. Anything who thinks eugenics = edgy nazi genocidal shit is the same kind of retard who thinks nuclear power plants are giant nukes. If you are against eugenics, you are wrong.

>>9631986
No we are all the same, ignore reality, vote bernie you bigots

>>9632042
Everyone will agree with you when they see the results.

>>9632042
I'm against anyone thinking they know what is a good or bad trait to begin with. No reasonable person can make that call with no doubt and a clear conscience. Unless you're an edgy nazi genocidal shit.

>>9632290
Mother's right to choose.

>>9632290
More smart and peaceful people is better that more violent criminals unless you are some kind of marxist who says that western civilisation is the same as african tribes.
What I really don't get is why isn't China doing it? Their party has full control, why not create supersoldiers and defeat the us.

>>9632042
Literally disproving the authors point that we're mature enough to digest this information. You're the reason why there's such a taboo talking about AVERAGE population differences

There is systemic push for PGD w/ IVF in China. Even to the point of secret figures to hide how fast they are expanding it. It is an important part of the central 5-year plan in China.
>>9632315


Comprehensive figures are difficult to come by, but estimates from leading PGD providers show that China’s use of the technique already outpaces that in the United States, and it is growing up to five times faster. Qiao’s clinic alone now performs more procedures with PGD each year than all of the United Kingdom.

“Looking over the development in China over the past 10 years, they might start to think it’s possible to get rid of these diseases,” says Kangpu Xu, a Chinese-born reproductive biologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City.

>>9632338
I should sum up this post. China is hungry for eugenics. The government embraces eugenics. Even if you see laws against it they will just informally allow it as they do many other things. They are generally secretive about this type of thing and probably didn't like all the articles about the genius search with BGI.

>>9632290
>Hur dur, it might be racist to suggest intelligence is a good thing, better to keep my mouth shut and my mind closed.

Typical libtard logic, as if the world and it's ideas didn't exist before their #1 quoted quasi-enemy, the Nazis. Yet they love their ideas so much they keep voting for them.

>>9631986
Anybody tempted to believe eugenics wouldn't be horrifying should take a long, hard look at the areas where it's already applied. Pedigreed dogs are horrifying. Agricultural breeds of plants and animals, while great from a functional perspective, are deformed freaks that are completely separated from their originating biology. Many are incapable of reproducing without human help. Most would not survie the wild. To make matters worse, these creatures are extremely homogenized and thus vulnerable to total extinction from the first disease that comes along which we can't fight. One might even make the case that long term, they are fundamentally unstable. This is the height of our achievement, with tens of thousands of years invested. Do you really think it's wise to turn these techniques on ourselves?

>>9632593
Pedigreed dogs are meeting market demand. Also not all breeds have low genetic variation and the dumb usage of extremely popular sires and other bottlenecks are largely the cause.

Working dogs on the other hand are pretty good examples of enhancement.

It's not useful to look at inbreeding and think embryo selection or embryo editing would result in inbreeding problems.

>>9631986
>NO EUGENICS
>cross necklace
Fucking christcucks

>>9632624
human eugenics would meet market demand almost by definition
You really think "popular sires" wouldn't be a problem?
But my point is much more general, and it's that we would turn ourselves into something like corn, which is not an ideal species in nature. We would make ourselves weaker, not stronger, in order to select for traits a few shortsighted scientists thought might be desirable.
And we would certainly not elevate the whole human race through eugenics. a much more likely scenario is that of brave new world, the establishment of genetic castes destined for particular occupations.

>>9632646
There already exists genetic castes, genetic inequality, and all sorts of things you talk about.

Do you think we are selecting for anything good right now besides who has the most kids?

>>9632315
>Their party has full control, why not create supersoldiers and defeat the us.
"Supersoldiers" don´t need a genius-level intellect. Furthermore, the party is in control precisely because the masses are infantile and dim-witted.

>>9632653
if you actually believe that there's no difference between society now and society with eugenics you need to get a grip
a lot of inequality today is environmental
but I do believe we are still selecting for some positive traits today, even though it's less than it used to be. disease resistance, sexual fitness (IVF hasn't done that much yet), mental stability, to name a few
planned society is always a shitstorm. le corbusier failed to create a functional living machine, and in the same way genetic engineering's vision for humanity will lack imagination.

>>9632646
>genetic castes destined for particular occupations.
This is already a reality. You don´t seriously believe that physicians, STEM-graduates or business executives don´t already hail from the intellectual elite, do you?

>>9632670
>a lot of inequality today is environmental
Research shows the exact opposite.

>>9632675
look dude the reason some kid from subsaharan africa isn't competing with you for university access is environmental. you and your worldview are a joke.

>>9632593
>pedigreed dogs
>agricultural breeds
They are like that because they suit our purposes that way. Breeding deformed, sterile humans wouldn't suit our purposes, so we wouldn't do it. If we accidentally happened to do it, we would stop.

>homogenized vulnerability
No one's talking about cloning or destroying variability, like in agriculture. The goal is slight modification, increasing some things, decreasing others, eliminating sicknesses.
There's lots of variability that no one's against.

I'm not sure whether eugenics have a place in our world, but your arguments are not at all convincing.

>>9632681
>look dude the reason some kid from subsaharan africa isn't competing with you for university access is environmental.
It´s environmental in the way that he isn´t proficient in English and thus cannot partake in a SAT/ACT-test.

>>9632682
>breeding deformed, sterile humans wouldn't suit our purposes?
you sure about that? basically all the eugenics people talked about making a race of super strong, super smart people. where's the limit to that? if men are willing to shrink their testicles to grow bigger muscles, what won't they do? how tall do we want to be? how big a penis should your son have? everything becomes an arms race.
>muh variability
in a market there will be preferred products. nobody will want to settle for the "second best" genetic enhancement. even more to the point, it's less efficient. the reason we have crops that are extremely homogenized is not that we thought that was aesthetic, it makes them cheaper to grow. a model-T human is the ideal factory worker, farmhand, etc.

>>9632042
agreed

>>9632290
>No reasonable person
that's why we need to have reasonable machines. because human logic shows its flaws more often with increased problem dimension.

>>9632693
>you sure about that?
Yes.
>Hey parents, your child can have [genetic trait], but he will be sterile, and you will never have grandchildren.
>Uhh, maybe not that, then.

>in a market there will be preferred products.
You neglect to take the human condition into calculation. People don't want a blank slate perfect human, they want THEIR children, who have THEIR traits and THEIR genes, to be better in some ways, no to turn into a "model-T".
>the reason we have crops that are extremely homogenized is not that we thought that was aesthetic
EXACTLY. Aesthetics weren't a priority. In children, they would be.

Your arguments are incredibly short sighted, and you seem to think that for people, (parents) there's no difference between plants and children.

>>9632736
look are we talking about eugenics here, or designer genetics? because your argument only applies to the latter.
you're way more optimistic about the human condition than you should be. people will instinctually do anything to give their child an advantage. we don't have strong instincts to ensure that they have the same genetic material as us because that simply hasn't come up. a thout experiment: if you have a recessive gene encoding some defect, wouldn't you be willing to excise that gene from your offspring? if you have an ugly face, would you really, given the choice, impose that face on your children?
act like a smartass all you want but these are not silly concerns

>>9632672
>muh IQ
>muh genes are a determinant of IQ
>muh genes are the only determinant of IQ

I've met and talked with tons of STEM fags, who are dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to everything else other than mechanical engineering.

Theres tons of stupid business executives, that have gotten by more on ivy league connections than "smarts"

physicians are fucking stupid, esp the ones with ego's in the way.

smartest people are most likely
Army Rangers and other "elite" forces where you join based on training.

>>9632761
>look are we talking about eugenics here, or designer genetics? because your argument only applies to the latter.
You're right here, I forgot what we were arguing about.
So, to get back on track. Obviously, if we kept the eugenics pool small, the lack of variability argument would hold, but we have no reason for that, now do we? We can select for [insert genetic trait here] among whatever populace we want, nobody's saying we should only use smart/strong/pretty/whatever WASPS from a single state. With proper planning, lack of variability is a non-issue.

>we don't have strong instincts to ensure that they have the same genetic material as us
Since when? This is exactly the reason why cuckolding is such a controversial thing, and people don't want to be cheated on. Most people don't want to rear other people's children, aka, they are partial to their own genetic material.
A much stronger argument here would have been that people would simply not be willing to participate in eugenics, because it would mean that certain people would be barred from having children, while others would be encouraged to have many, and thus, tensions would arise.
>have a recessive gene encoding some defect, wouldn't you be willing to excise that gene from your offspring?
Now we're back to selective gene modification, but no, I wouldn't be against this, but saying that such modifications would lead to an army of identical one-sickness-will-destroy-all mutants is a huge jump to an unwarranted conclusion. Beauty is not objective, neither are a lot of human traits' desirability. The possibility of genetic modification wouldn't breed identical clones because there's no "ultimate human" any significant portion of the populace would agree on.

I wasn't trying to act like a smartass, and I'm not even sure that eugenics/genetic modification would be a good thing, but your arguments are just incredibly easy to refute. You're looking at this all wrong.

Eugenics is a good idea and this interesting debate is so informative. Keep bumping the thread with the amazing posts.

>>9632315
they are technically still held back by the trappings of communism and marxism
in all official state propaganda they still extol the virtues of their utopic communist state

>>9632798
so I'm not saying people will end up exactly like plants, I'm saying our past creations are an indication of future tendencies, and that in a very general sense, we have seriously fucked things up in the past, and from that it's reasonable to infer that we will seriously fuck things up in the future.
Thinking that planning will avoid these problems seems misguided to me. Compare to the case of Lysenko and the winter wheat. It's also extremely difficult to enforce, especially since as I've said, the population will tend to develop a belief that a particular trait is superior.
The rearing problem is a good point, but I suspect those instincts are not precise enough either. Animal mothers can be convinced to care for entirely different species. Witness the cuckold's namesake the cuckoo.

>>9632770
>smartest are army rangers

Kek, nice bait

>>9633725
>Doctors are higher than mathematicians and electrical engineers
get the fuck out

>>9632666
This.

>>9632042
> Eugenics will sole 99% of the world's problems.

Only if you kill 99% of the world's population.

The remaining Earth might not be one you want to live in.

>>9632681