/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9817939

>>9817939

Who has ever said that?

>>9817942
stupid libtards

It's not an issue of if it "works" or not. It's an issue of ethics. Also dogs only like like 15 years and have a litter size of like 10. It would take an extremely long time for it work in humans.

>>9817962
The 15 year lifespan isn't the important number. It's how dogs can breed starting around 1 years old and have a gestation period of only 2 months, with like 10 pups each time. It's insane how much you can breed dogs.

>>9817965
Lifespan does also factor into it: more liters. But the point is the same. Dogs breed quickly, humans breed very slowly.

>>9817939
>we can do it, therefore we should

>>9817979
>We should just let retards have as many kids as they want

Surely there's a happy medium

>>9817980
Hate to break it to you, but every human trait is not 100% genetic and wiping out people based on genetics will not solve any of the world's problems.

>>9817984
>Every human trait is not 100% genetic, therefore there's no point in trying to fix anything

>wiping out people based on genetics will not solve any of the world's problems.

So you can't think of any particular group that we would be better off without? One that, say, makes up 13% of the US but commits 52% of the murder...

>>9817984
If we wipe out the people with genetic predispositions to diseases, we could save a lot in medical costs.

Its not that it cannot be done, its that humans are too stupid to do it, if people did, people selecting for intelligence would often pick the stupidest possible people and do irreversible damage, especially people from /sci/. But generally anyone who tried would fuck up. /sci/ eugenics would almost always be the opposite of whatever was intended.

>>9818034
So let /sci/ do it theoretically then do the exact opposite

It's flawless

>dogs are just retarded small wolves
not everyone wants people to go the same path

protip: in the great gene purge none of you weak faggots would make the cut.

>>9817984
I know but the desire didn't go away.

>>9818023
Being arrested and convicted of a crime does not mean that you actually committed the crime.
Also, eugenics is morally repugnant. Google "Aktion T4."

>>9818044
And? I would still support it. My life is worthless in a grand scheme of things. Humanity would benefit.

>>9817965

Exactly, anyone who uses dogs as an argument for human eugenics is acting retarded. Society may try to see women as baby factories but they are grossly inferior baby factories compared to dogs and insects who heavily use litter and brood breeding strategies.

>>9818066
Yea it does actually.

>>9818066
Should we only allow women to have kids through random sperm donations?
How do the characteristics that people seek in their mates serve as better criteria than any state-sponsored eugenics program?

>>9818066
>Also, eugenics is morally repugnant. Google "Aktion T4."
Remember that /pol/tards such as OP unironically want to do this to whatever group they hate.

>>9818090
So just because it's slow it wont work? Get the fuck out.

>>9818066
>Implying eugenics has to be forced
>Implying you can't use soft incentives

>>9817939
Most breeds become degenerate due to limited gene pools, congratulations on disproving your own point

>>9817939
>ignoring the massive defects inherent in some dog breeds

>>9817948
Literally never heard anyone say "eugenics is debunked."

"Eugenics is a shitty practice when it comes to humans" is probably more common and a completely different argument.

>>9818114
>So just because it's slow it wont work?

Time is only part of the problem. Think about how eugenics in dogs work here anon. You have a litter that averages around 6 puppies per pregnancy. In that one litter you have the ability to compare and select the best candidate from six puppies to breed the next generation with.

In humans you literally get one baby per pregnancy on average. Having multiple is a rarity in comparison so you shouldn't expect anymore per pregnancy. So since you only have one candidate to compare with instead of six candidates. In order to get the equivalent you would need 6 total pregnancies for a human compared to 1 for a dog.

We haven't even took into account that the particular trait (lets assume very high intelligence since people have a hard on for +140 IQ) isn't guaranteed in any of those 6 pregnancies/ 1 litter. So if you are unsatisfied with the results you then need to have another 6 pregnancies (12 total) for a human and a second litter (2 total) for a dog.

Once you get your candidate then there's the issue of whether or not the +140 IQ kid that eventually comes out from all this is healthy or not. Because if it isn't you risk either a higher prevalence of autism or worst some debilitating like Tay-Sachs that the Ashkenazi Jews have in all future generations.

>>9817980
>meet an 80 iq moron
>she has 3 kids
>one is a lawyer, one is a doctor, one is an accountant
>find out the reason she's low IQ: fetal alcohol syndrome
>still able to pass on high IQ genetics
unironically, really made me think
i'm hold the position that until we have rock solid genetic IQ tests, we cannot accurately practice eugenics.
there's no way to know which retards are retarded because of their genes and which ones are retarded because they grew up drinking leaded water raiseed by parents who never handed them a book

So the first massive bit of blurb was essentially the same point that it takes longer and is harder, yes I agree but it is not a point you can simply dismiss the argument because of.

>whether or not the +140 IQ kid that eventually comes out from all this is healthy or not. Because if it isn't you risk either a higher prevalence of autism or worst some debilitating like Tay-Sachs that the Ashkenazi Jews have in all future generations.

Please clarify exactly how selecting for desired traits produces inbreeding disorders. For a start we have a massive gene pool to match within and secondly, interbreeding is NOT a guarantee of genetic disorders. Let us look at the "working dogs", things like collies, huskies and greyhounds, all fairly inbred to our standards yet they are all as breeds, healthy as fuck with some of the LOWEST amounts of genetic disorders. This is correctly applied eugenics, dysgenic inbreeding of breeds such as pugs will of course produce hideous inbred monsters when you breed to amplify certain physical conditions with no regard to the general health of the animals that are being bred.

This stuff isn't rocket science, fucking cavemen worked out to select less aggressive animals to herd and tame jesus christ.

>>9817948
>stupid libtards
>libtards
Its great that idiots are using language so identifiable you can filter out their existence with almost no effort.

>>9818023
>makes up 13% of the US but commits 52% of the murder
There it is, no one gives a shit about your racist, uneducated opinion. Even if someone were to try and engage you it would be fruitless because you are almost certainly illiterate.

>>9818094
>Yea it does actually.
Oh so all those cases where people were exonerated never happened then.

>>9818391
>Large dogs
>healthy as fuck
You have absolutely no fucking clue what you are talking about. Literally googling "large dog health problems" would leave you better informed. Opinion discarded.

>>9818396
Not that guy but it's unfortunate that you attack his fact, because I'm afraid it is a fact, rather than his sad character. Makes you look petulant.

>>9817939
>>Eugenics has been debunked
No. By most measures, eugenics (for humans) is ineffective and unethical. It's hard to identify and breed something for humans, even in skin-deep appearance stuff it can be hard due to lack of genetic variety. There are so many factors that citing limiting mixing of dogs to produce a limited set of physical characteristics in a breed means nothing.

Eugenics is such a meme. Its not even immoral, only if its not voluntary.

>>9818403
Looks like you are the one spouting shit. For a start, working dogs are not "large dogs", those are breeds such as great danes and wolfhounds, again more breeds with histories of being bred for physical characteristics and no other regards.

I have gone through several lists under your google search of "large dog healrh problems" and the vast majority are not problems among working dogs and many are problems common among all sorts of dog breeds.

Get some real facts or fuck off.

>>9818413
Yes voluntary eugenics is good. My suggestion would be a one time luml sum payment of idk 50-100k, no questions asked, so long as you are permanently sterilised.

Watch the gutter trash of society and fucking mongrels with garbage tier genetics line up around the block to get sterilised.

>>9818405
I didnt attack the facts, I attacked the fact that he tried to push an agenda. The line of thinking "blacks commit more crime per capita than whites and it is because they are black" doesnt follow.

>>9818414
When you have to resort to semantics you know you dont have a leg(heh) to stand on. Re classifying your stance doesnt make it any less wrong, statistically larger breeds of dogs have more health problems than smaller up to a point which is mutually exclusive with your "healthy as fuck" statement.

Pretty sure that the royal families of medieval europe tried that sorta stuff through selective breeding, procreating only with other people of royal blood and so on, look how that turned out. It's just Eugenics is a pandora's box. We don't know enough about genetics yet to make it work well and even if we did it opens up a whole host of ethical and moral problems too. But if you wanna do away with that stuff fine but don't be surprised you find yourself kneeled down infront of a firing squad because the state deems you genetically unworthy.

>>9818430
>firing squad
Come the fuck on anon, at worst it would be enfroced chemical sterilization.

>>9818447

Depends on who you have at the helm. Outright killing and genocide is a bit extreme but in countries like China or in the middle east I wouldn't put it above them. Still though, enforced chemical sterilizations would already violate a number of human rights laws and would see some very serious public backlash against the powers that are enforcing it in the first place.

There's also the problem of other countries adopting eugenics too. If we ever get to that point where we can specifically breed desirable traits into future generations then you can expect the elite of certain countries to use it to consolidate their power which at that point other countries will either have to do the same thing to compete with them or just outright declare war to stop it.

Like I said, it's a pandora's box and once we cross that line things are gonna get real shitty real fast.

>>9818149
They have dude
Reddit is a terrible place (I mean that I have witnessed this phrase on Reddit)
Trump winning in 2020 will be so sweet
Just the utter btfoing of libs

>>9818625
Epic based and redpilled.

>>9818066
>being convicted of a crime does not mean you committed it
Lol. At least think through the implications.
>>9818149
>shitty
lol
>>9818396
>racist
lol
>>9818406
>It's hard to identify and breed something for humans
Lol. What new bullshit are you going to have to spout in 2030?
>>9818428
>agenda
lol
>>9818429
Lol. Smaller breeds of dog do indeed live longer... than wolves.
>>9818430
>ethical and moral problems
One word: China.

Eugenics obviously works, and society already practices it to some extent. Liberals are so stupid.
When the government strongly discourages people with Huntington's from having children, it's a form of eugenics, and it is done because it works and helps cleaning the gene pool of terrible diseases.
Here's some facts for liberals:
- Genes influence humans
- Genes are passed down from parents to child
The result is that eugenics works. For it not to work, one of these would have to be invalid, and anyone can see that they're not.

>>9818023
>Kill all niggers
>The next day a study comes out that after niggers, the next most violent group is /pol/tards
What do?

>>9818153
>Because if it isn't you risk either a higher prevalence of autism
>risk
>"risk of an advantageous trait"
Neurotypicals can fuck right off

>>9817939

The only time we actually had "eugenics" (not as political buzzword, but in the actual meaning) was within some european aristocratic families. It led to genetic disorders due to gene pool which was too small.

>>9817939
americans breeded their niggers and they're not happy with that

>>9818717
>The only time we actually had "eugenics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States

>>9818731

Whenever something dumb in history occured you can bet the 'murritards developed it further..

>>9817939
The thing that's been debunked is the idea that governments are competent enough to do it.

>>9817965
Dogs are honestly OP as fuck and I hope it gets patched soon

>>9818033
It would cost much more to implement such a program than to just treat those individuals

>>9818391
>retard doesnt know DNA pol is 'unstable' af when is duplicating the DNA chain adding this to a low genetic variation ambient
Engineer nigger or med pleb, which one are you?

>>9818687
They would likely have a nice smile on their face. It has nothing to do with "saving the white race".

>>9817965
>It's insane how much you can breed dogs.

t. /b/

>>9818023
Back to your containment board, please.

>>9818399

DO NOT FEED

>>9817939
Incredible bait.

How do your morons think the Ashkenazi got so smart? You either increase or erase a % of a certain population that carry the genes you want to select for, it's that fucking simple.

Fucking conservatives don't get it.

>>9818405

It is because they are black, its genetics, it's the same in my country, the blacks are around 10% of the population yet commit more than 60% of the crime, asians commit the lowest crime and are the best immigrants followed by Indians and Ukrainians. (Southern Europe)

You're just naive like I used to be, used to be hard left when I was in Uni, then got a job and had to move to a different neighbourhood because our house prices are rising due to tourism and retirees from Northern Europe.

After less than a year my political opinions changed immensely, from having my deliveries stolen, to the blacks breaking our building door because they "like to have the door always open", to constant disrespect to others, it's hell, I hate it here.

You whites have no idea what it is like, my only concern now is when I leave this place and have kids of my own how am I going to kick the naiveté that seems inherit our race, can't just let them read the blank slate, they won't take anything from that, they need a wake up, but I don't want them to experience this.

Anyway, that's my only quip I have, Northern Europeans are incredibly naive, I heard this from a friend that lived in Sweden, he said "Whites are the golden retrievers of humans, they are the nicest, happiest and most friendly people to come around but if they were told to jump from a building they would" and I cannot agree more, you are so naive, so so fucking naive, you'll never get it.

And you know what's funny, all the other races, at least in my country, they know this, my asian boss in high school knows that blacks were dangerous and talked with me in the open, I defended them, you know what happened, a couple of weeks later a black tried to rob the store I was working at, the Indians, oh those don't give a shit, they discriminate on the open.

Yet it's only the whites that are this naive, ironically I think it's genetic as well, you're to open to experience, you're to agreeable, fools.

>>9818956

> he said "Whites are the golden retrievers of humans, they are the nicest, happiest and most friendly people to come around

I'm sure the Amerindians would agree with such assessment anon.

>>9818983
This is such a stupid argument have you seen the state of white people today?

You know what the arabs did to the black slaves? They castrated them so they couldn't reproduce, Chinese today broadcast US spies torture to government officials, in South Africa some blacks boiled a white kid alive after killing his parents in a farm attack, in Israel they have laws that prohibit intermarriage and just deported thousands and thousands of illegal africans, look at Brazil, look at Mexico, look at Africa look at every single muslim country, you live in a safe tolerant bubble, your problems are nothing compared to the rest of the world.

How naive, how foolish, how idiotic.

>>9818643
Dude, studies have shown that there is an epidemic of wrongful convictions of black people.

>>9818997
This also skews crime statistics to over-represent blacks. Lots of wrongful/dishonest convictions.

>>9818995

>Bring up Amerindians
>Responds with Africans, Chinese, Jews instead

Moving goalpost I see.

>>9818997
>studies have shown that there is an epidemic of wrongful convictions of black people
I assume you just mean it's more common than for other races. That could be. Even so, do you honestly believe it would be enough to account for 13% of the population "committing" 52% of the murder? And how do you handle the fact that when a black person is wrongfully convicted, it's because they matched the description of a DIFFERENT black person who did it?

>>9819027
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/wrongful-convictions-race-exoneration.html

>>9819035
>about 52% of murder convictions are blacks
>about 47% of murder exonerations are blacks
OK, I guess?

>>9819027
>it's because they matched the description
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/black-men-threatening.aspx

It's well known when you're black you automatically gain 6 inches and ~50 pounds

BASED sharapova complaining about serena williams "towering" over her.

>>9819021
It's all so tiresome, I really don't care, live your life.

>>9818429
So despite the fact that of the properly bred dogs which I am using for my case in point hardly any have any of the health problems listed under your google search, again you are bringing in a blanket case of large is worse, even though I have already btfo your stupud ass.

>>9819076
>Americowards argumentative skills

>>9819061
>Participants judged the black men to be larger, stronger and more muscular than the white men
>while they judged young black men to be more muscular than the young white men, they did not judge them to be more harmful or deserving of force
OK, I guess. But please remind me why this would cause black men to get convicted for non-black crimes?

>>9819093
I'll take up his point for him. Yeah sure, whites slaughtered the fuck out of the natives, just as the natives did to each other and just the same as every other race throughout history. Yet whites were the first to abolish slavery and establish things like universal rights, which still don't really exist outside white countries.

>>9818430
>royal families of medieval europe tried that sorta stuff through selective breeding, procreating only with other people of royal blood and so on
Nice straw man. You've conflated eugenics with class endogamy. The royal families did not practice eugenics. They practiced class endogamy. Mates were selected based on POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY, not on GOOD GENETICS. Your point about the royal families argues in favor of eugenics. Had they selected for good genetics instead of other factors heritable diseases would not have been so prevalent among the royal families.

>We don't know enough about genetics yet to make it work well
Every dairy farmer over the past few thousand centuries would disagree with you.

>whole host of ethical and moral problems
such as?

>don't be surprised you find yourself kneeled down infront of a firing squad because the state deems you genetically unworthy
implying eugenics is the same as state sanctioned homocide

To help improve the quality of this board, please THINK just a little bit before you post. Otherwise go to >>>/pol/

>>9818894
Underrated

>>9819195
>Yet whites were the first to abolish slavery and establish things like universal rights, which still don't really exist outside white countries.
This is fucking dumb

>>9819195

>Yet whites were the first to abolish slavery and establish things like universal rights,

Objectively wrong anon

http://www.wisdompills.com/2016/11/20/emperor-ashoka-buddhist-ruler-banned-slavery-animal-cruelty-implemented-gender-equality/amp/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

>>9819337
>claims he has a non-white example
>example is a literal ancient Aryan

>>9817948

>>9819345

Ancient India genome is spread across most of Eurasia. By your logic he is also South Asian.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia

The genome of the Mauyarian people in 185 BCE would not be the same as Northern Europeans in 1700 CE. Your argument is equivalent to modern day Blacks claming to be Ancient Egyptians.

>>9818085
>>And? I would still support it. My life is worthless in a grand scheme of things. Humanity would benefit.
your life and your opinions are worthless. you have no power or right to judge the worthiness of others who rightfully know better than to devalue themselves

>>9818625
>>9818643

Maybe you should go back to r*ddit?

>>9817939
If amything, the way we've fucked up wolf DNA without even resorting to GMO is proof we shouldn't be doing eugenics.

There was a time when we sterilized kids for being too quiet. Once they grew up, it turned out we just removed a bunch of geniuses from the gene pool. It's best to just let sexual selection do its thing

>>9819646
lol

The way it was always described to me was as to the difficulty in selecting a trait through traditional eugenics, or even in more advanced germ line modification. One day we find that shy people are detrimental to our society in some manner, as such shyness becomes a trait targeted for eugenics. What we did not realize though is that shyness was linked to intelligence and creativity and as such we just hamstrung our populous. We target the SNG gene and remove it from the genome as it has been identified as a cause for reduced mental function in adults. Later we discover SNG was a neuroprotective gene and our population is suddenly much more susceptible to head injury. Not all things will end up like this but the trick is knowing what will do what and we don't understand biology on that level yet.

I am all for correcting easily understood genetic diseases such as Huntingtons as letting kids live in such a manner is cruel. Non-necessary gene modification leads down a tricky path though that we do not have the information to plot out properly, hopefully one day we will. Finally eugenics is just a bad plan, as was laid out by other posters, we do not breed quickly enough or with enough regularity to make it worth it. In dogs you can select a bunch of puppies exhibiting a trait and do multiple in and out breeding to extract the desired traits, all while keeping a homogeneous home life and feeding schedule. Humans just don't have that time frame to work on and our variance in environment makes it difficult to tell if a person exhibits the traits due to differences in heritable traits, epigenetic traits, or environment.

>>9820227
>Finally eugenics is just a bad plan, as was laid out by other posters, we do not breed quickly enough or with enough regularity to make it worth it
This argument would make sense if the goal were to quickly produce the huge changes you see in new dog breeds, but it isn't. It is to improve the stock by not breeding sickly and deformed specimens---just like is done by responsible breeders with EXISTING dog breeds.

>>9819462
>strawman

>>9817939
Literally picrelated.
With every generation our problems're gonna keep getting worse and worse. Look up the autism statistics, allergy statistics too. Speaking of allergy - I just can't stop encountering these weirdos who can't walk outside because they're allergic to air, rocks, pollen, sun and water. Faggots are one of the signs of disgenics. Think about this. We literally have 7% of people who can't even fucking reproduce normally, something 100% of their ancestors could do.
Hopefully they'll allow gene editing so we get eugenics++.

>>9817948
Literally no one says this. The entire argument is that making sweeping decisions about what traits humans should have is morally reprehensible. Which it is.

And keep in mind that the vast majority of dog breeds have some sort of horrific genetic defect that kills or cripples half the population before they can die of old age because of selecting for certain traits.

>>9819087
>btfo your stupud ass
Damn you got me. How will I ever recover from being insulted by someone who forms opinions off of personal narrative, is incapable of accepting they are wrong, and has a elementary command of the English language?

>>9820697
Yeah you're right.
But only if you're talking about selectively breeding humans for hunting foxes or bloodsports. OP's talking about general-purpose eugenics, where you select against OBVIOUSLY negative traits, such as genetic disorders which don't make you sterile, but still make life somewhat more challenging (for the future generations). In my opinion having hundreds of people suffer in the future because you were too much of a coward to tell Tard Joe having kids probably isn't the best idea in his case is far more immoral than eugenics.

>>9820684
>With every generation our problems're gonna keep getting worse and worse. Look up the autism statistics, allergy statistics too.
increases in autism diagnoses are the result of doctors being better at recognizing it, and allergies are almost entirely caused by environmental factors.
commit kakuro

>>9820236

>It is to improve the stock by not breeding sickly and deformed specimens---just like is done by responsible breeders with EXISTING dog breeds.

If that's the case then healthcare in general should be trashed. Not just for the poor or sickly but for everyone including the rich and everyone on this shit hole site. Because it has been documented that healthcare in general has reduced our reaction time compared to people in the Victorian age.

>>9820684

>Think about this. We literally have 7% of people who can't even fucking reproduce normally, something 100% of their ancestors could do.

I can guarantee you all of our ancestors didn't have a 100% reproduction rate. The difference is that those people who could reproduce just had more kids overshadowing the genomes of those who didn't. Which is accurate because we have a number of Adam/Eve genetically distributed populations where the bulk of society comes from specific sub-set of a whole population.

Also your pic is shit, the answer for every question asked should literally be both economics and genes. Dog breeds are a result humans need to solve problems or have vanity companions. Most breeds wouldn't survive in the wild on their own which highlights how specific their ecological niche really is. We know what the natural state of a dog is genetically it's called a fucking wolf. So why pretend it's just "genetics" at play?

>>9820684
>Brainlet comics
Differences between races are like the differences within a specific breed, not differences between different dog breeds

>>9819186
>But please remind me why this would cause black men to get convicted for non-black crimes?
It can cause a given black man to be wrongfully accused of a crime he did not commit. The people of a race are not one person.