We need eugenics to make a major comeback

[Anonymous No.10352490]

For that to happen we're going to need people to be informed on what eugenics is, where and why it went wrong, and the most promising ways of implementing it. Right now most people seem to be stuck in the ignorant mentality that killed eugenics in the first place.

A good summary of eugenics: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/human-testing-the-eugenics-movement-and-irbs-724.. It went wrong mostly due to scientific malfeasance and missing the epigenetic/microbiome factor.

But eugenics itself is scientifically sound. We've continued to practice it on animals for thousands of years.

This gives a simple layout of the various ways eugenics can be implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Implementation_methods - note that many of them are already implemented in many countries.


Why do we need eugenics? Because doing nothing about unhealthy people continuing to breed spirals out of control, and is likely why the vast majority of the US population is so incredibly unhealthy, poorly developed, and poorly functioning.

For a detailed analysis of what's been occurring health & development-wise on a population-level, including the suggested steps to fix the problem see: https://medium.com/@MaximilianKohler/a-critical-look-at-the-current-and-longstanding-ethos-of-childbearing-the-repercussions-its-been-6e37f7f7b13f

[Anonymous No.10352495]

>>10352490
Abortions and fetus screening fit issues helps a fuckton.

[Anonymous No.10352501]

>>10352490
Wont happen in the near time. If it won’t benefit the wealthy, any significant change to to society will not be easily allowed.

[Anonymous No.10352528]

>>10352490
tl;dr?

[Anonymous No.10352554]

"It is really extraordinary that our people refuse to apply to human beings such elementary knowledge as every successful farmer is obliged to apply to his own stock breeding" -Theodore Roosevelt

"The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. By the end of World War II, many discriminatory eugenics laws were abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany"

But prior to that "Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from many sources".

"In their book published in 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements"

[Anonymous No.10352563]

>>10352490
>>10352554
Why're black women so perfect?

[Anonymous No.10352580]

>>10352528
I'm not sure that it can be "TLDR'd". I can try:

1. It went wrong mostly due to scientific malfeasance and missing the epigenetic/microbiome factor.

2. Eugenics is extremely broad and various forms of eugenics have been in practice in many western countries despite the bad rep that the word "eugenics" has.

3. But it's not enough, we need more eugenics (primarily through education, contraception, abortions, etc.), because the health of the population has been exponentially worsening, in large part due to junk food diets, antibiotics, and unhealthy people having children, then those unhealthy children go on to create more unhealthy people.

>>10352501
You might be right. Hopefully enough of them will be intelligent enough to see the path we're going down leads to Idiocracy (2006), or worse.

I think these ideas can gain traction in many US states and other countries. People just need to be educated about what's been happening and where it's leading us.

[Anonymous No.10352583]

Eugenics is unnecessary and invasive.

Standard methods of reproduction should be abolished. Sex is unhygenic and depraved anyway.

Embryos should be fertilised externally and screened before being implanted in the womb. Parents should only be allowed minimal influence over their psychological and educational upbringing.

Better than eugenics or the above will be corporate run cloning facilities utilising artificial wombs.

Face it. Parents are shit at their job and eugenics doesn't solve that issue whilst maintaining a high degree of genetic variability.

[Anonymous No.10352588]

High IQ devils have enslaved our noble retard people for far too long. We must resist their tyranny and breed them out. Once our nation's IQ is >1.5 standard deviations lower, then we will be free

[Anonymous No.10352599]

>>10352583
found the incel

[Anonymous No.10352623]

>>10352495
Agree, but we need far more than that.

>>10352563
Good question.

Part of it might be that US blacks are mixed race. 22% white is a number I heard but don't have a citation for it.

>>10352583
>Eugenics is unnecessary and invasive.
This represents a misunderstanding of what eugenics is. Which is why I created this thread. If you would review the links in the OP, particularly the wikipedia one, you'd gain a better understanding of what eugenics is.

>Better than eugenics or the above will be corporate run cloning facilities utilising artificial wombs.
This may not be a good idea considering what we're finding out about the importance of the human microbiome's impact on health and development.

This also seems extremely contradictory to your previous complaint about invasiveness.

[Anonymous No.10352624]

>>10352599
Incels aren't real. It's impossible to be unwillingly single. You would have this worked out if you weren't a brainlet.

Somebody lop off his testicles. He's unfit to breed.

[Anonymous No.10352632]

>>10352580
i still don't get how anyone could have the hubris to subjectively judge one genotype over another, or one phenotype over another. especially considering that a lot of important people in history were savants or "special" or gifted in an exceptionally rare way. because eugenics requires some judgment of "better" and "worse" i find it hard to believe there is any scientific definition for better or worse.

for example, you might argue immunity to the HIV virus is "better". but nobody is having any of that with that guy from china. eugenics is even more questionable than designer baby gene editing

[Anonymous No.10352635]

>>10352490
Eugenics would result in the extinction of black and brown people. Which would include me and my low IQ family.

[Anonymous No.10352640]

>>10352623
I'm genuinely interested to know what method of eugenics you consider non-invasive and non-damaging on the individuals involved.

Microbiome can be grown in a petri dish. If you're going to these extents it would be a superior option given what is being discovered about the microbiome in our gut.

If you're going to be invasive you might as well do it properly. Genetics does not account for the full range of human limitations. Societal influences are pivotal. Society needs to change.

Okay fine I will read your wiki reference.

[Anonymous No.10352644]

>>10352624
But if you castrate him involuntarily, won't that force him to be celibate?

[Anonymous No.10352651]

>>10352644
Interesting fact. Eunuchs can still gain an erection and attain orgasm.

The more you know.

[Anonymous No.10352656]

>>10352651
And eunuchs don't care if you spit or swallow, they're really the perfect men.

[Anonymous No.10352657]

"Linus Pauling was a scientist and peace advocate who was so widely admired that he’s the only person to win two unshared Nobel Prizes. In all his pursuits, he appeared to have an overriding philosophy to minimize human suffering. He believed that abortion caused less suffering than a hereditary disease. To reduce human suffering, he believed it was necessary to legally intervene to wipe out the factors that caused genetic diseases. The next step would be to restrict marriage and reproduction for carriers of the disease."

>>10352632
I don't think you have a good understanding of eugenics. Have you reviewed the links in the OP? There are many ways to judge a person's health. Narrowing it down to "genotype" is why eugenics went wrong in the first place.

>>10352635
No it wouldn't. Hopefully your IQ is high enough to be able to review the OP links so you can understand it better.

What eugenics would do is prevent low IQ people from being created in the first place. One of the primary ways to do this is by education.

I think most people should be able to agree that a population where the vast majority of people are poorly developed and poorly functioning is extremely problematic and should not be ignored, as is currently the case.

[Anonymous No.10352660]

>>10352554
>maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements"
Um sweaty that’s something that Nazis might do
The left needs to be a willing and deceptive arm of people with status money and power

[Anonymous No.10352664]

>>10352640
>I'm genuinely interested to know what method of eugenics you consider non-invasive and non-damaging on the individuals involved.

Did you review the wiki link? I will list some of the better ones:


Sex education in schools.[89]
School-based clinics.[90]
Promoting the use of contraception.[91]
Emergency contraception.[92]
Research for better contraceptives.[93]
Voluntary sterilization.[94]
Abortion.[95]

Incentives for sterilization.[97]
The Denver Dollar-a-day program, i.e. paying teenage mothers for not becoming pregnant again.[98]
Incentives for women on welfare to use contraceptions.[99]
Payments for sterilization in developing countries.[100]
Licences for parenthood
>Microbiome can be grown in a petri dish
Not currently, and probably not for decades. Only about 1% of human microbes are known/and or cultureable https://old.reddit.com/r/HumanMicrobiome/wiki/index#wiki_testing.3A.. And the entire environment, not just the specific microbes, are important.

[Anonymous No.10352667]

>>10352657
Oh look. Another IQ thread.

I'm just going to stop you right here. What are you going to do with a population base so smart they refuse to perform menial labour. This is something which is already happening.

High IQ combined with a refusal to work in menial labour leads to criminality. I don't care how advanced policing gets you don't want groups of criminals with high IQ.

Again you are overlooking the importance of societal influences.

As a final point I do not believe you are competent enough to decide what constitutes good genetic traits or bad ones.

[Anonymous No.10352671]

>>10352657
>by education
My IQ is too low everyone in my family was raised to value education and study hard. We went to a high performing public school and we struggled alot. I ended up graduating college with a general bachelors degree after 7 years. I wanted to be an astrophysicist and wasnt meant to be. My dad spent a number of years trying to be an engineer but kept failing. He said he made it to calculus but it was impossible to learn. The truth is most black people wanna be doctors and engineers but we cant learn as well as everybody else. I remember being in elementary school and struggling to figure out where to put the period in a sentence and I still dont know what verbs or nouns are

[Anonymous No.10352672]

>>10352657
>I don't think you have a good understanding of eugenics. Have you reviewed the links in the OP?
no, i don’t have any formal training in a pseudoscience, and i won’t click your shit links.
> There are many ways to judge a person's health. Narrowing it down to "genotype" is why eugenics went wrong in the first place.
eugenics is selecting genotypes though, if you think about it. and health isn’t the best indicator of a “good” genotype, if you believe such a thing exists objectively.

weak arguments all around

[Anonymous No.10352704]

>>10352672
>no, i don’t have any formal training in a pseudoscience, and i won’t click your shit links.
>wikipedia and nature.com
>shit links

[Anonymous No.10352712]

>>10352640
>If you're going to be invasive you might as well do it properly

I'm not advocating for invasiveness. Invasive eugenics is what gives eugenics a bad rep.

>Genetics does not account for the full range of human limitations

Agree. This is one of the primary points I'm making here. The first, and especially 3rd link in the OP expound on this. The 3rd one has a lot of discussion on the impacts of the microbiome.


>>10352667
>Oh look. Another IQ thread.
No. Don't reduce this down to that. That is quite incorrect.

>What are you going to do with a population base so smart they refuse to perform menial labour.
This is laughable. Smart people wouldn't refuse to do something that was necessary to maintain societal functioning. Additionally, there is automation/robotics. "A population so smart" would accelerate those technologies.

I would highly recommend this free, short novel that deals with this subject: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

>As a final point I do not believe you are competent enough to decide what constitutes good genetic traits or bad ones.
Did you even review the links in the OP? Because your reply does not reflect that. Thus, in my opinion you are projecting your own incompetence onto others.

[Anonymous No.10352714]

>>10352704
meh, eugenics is a pseudoscience. i made my case earlier about why: >>10352632
and you have no real counter-argument except "muh links!!!"

not doing well there buddy

[Anonymous No.10352726]

>>10352583
>eugenics is invasive
>Parents should only be allowed minimal influence over their psychological and educational upbringing.

[Anonymous No.10352728]

>>10352671
That sounds like a largely racist, and extremely stereotypical comment. But there is some evidence that black populations in the US are exposed to brain & health damaging pollutants like lead, at higher rates than the general population.

To have your entire lives destroyed by something like that is horrendous. And if you're able to, I would definitely recommend trying to organize in your community in an effort to stop and prevent that kind of thing from occurring.

Additionally, the life-long hardship/suffering you describe is what I'd like to prevent.

[Anonymous No.10352739]

>>10352672
>>10352714
Interesting that someone so illiterate and allergic to learning hangs out on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.10352750]

>>10352728
Dude you sound nice and all but theres an evolutionary reason to this and i've come to realize the differences between the subspecies of the human race very slowly. You might someday too.

[Anonymous No.10352764]

>>10352712
The right kind of invasiveness is required. Eugenics is the wrong kind. Reproduction needs to be taken out of the hands of parents. The family model is breaking down and has been causing more harm than good recently. I reiterate that parents are bad at their job. Many parents have children for very bad reasons.

If you think smart people are going to clean your shit off the back of a toilet willingly and thankfully then by your own definition you are unfit to breed because you have a limited capacity for intellectual understanding.

Your primary deciding factor regarding permissible reproduction is IQ. This is a serious problem.

[Anonymous No.10352846]

>>10352750
Sounds like you're choosing willful ignorance. Ignoring environmental and epigenetic factors, which are arguably much more important than genetic ones. See the 3rd link in the OP.

>>10352764
I agree with many of your statements, but you're advocating for things which aren't achievable within the next 50 years.

Whereas the 3rd link in the OP has a list of suggested fixes which could be achieved right now.

Your last two paragraphs are entirely incorrect and thus demonstrate that you've still failed to review any of the information presented and rather choose to simply regurgitate your preconceived notions.

[Anonymous No.10352977]

>>10352714
It's not about "gene A < gene B", it's about cause and effect. What we need to do is sequence the genome of millions of people, cross-reference all their genes for similarities and differences (in intelligence, personality, physique, etc.) and use them to draw a net of genes and what they do. And include controls for epigenetics and microbiome and cultural up-bringing too I suppose. Once we have this database, all we need to do is culture the genes in bacteria and let parents pick and mix, and provide an accurate description about what their choices will do. Just calling it a pseudoscience isn't productive at all. The aim of "liberal eugenics" is to place autonomy or control in the hands of the parents, and this is already what's happening in the form of abortions for disabled foetuses. The only subjective nature of this process will be in the opinions of the parents, which is about as un-authoritarian as you can get.

>>10352764
Distancing the process of raising children from the subjective views of their parents and their culture is fine on paper, but sending them into dedicated indoctrination schooling centres with no diversity of thought? Might as well be raising mindless worker drones. Handing out reproduction permission is the best way to ensure children are getting raised well without running into these issues, but it's a bit totalitarian for my stomach. The idea that "we'll have too many smart people for menial jobs" is an issue that's certainly worth some thought, but to mention it without the existence of the opposite "menial jobs are all being replaced by automatons" issue is short-sighted. I'm not saying the two will perfectly cancel one-another out, but we can control the speed and strength of both "designer baby tech" and "automation tech" with policymaking, and hopefully match the two of these up. If not, which is likely, we'll get a disadvantaged generation or two, hardly the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.10352988]

Embryo selection from IVF is a much more realistic approach to increasing IQ. The technology is already here in a primitive form websites like gene plaza have developed tests to estimate the IQ or education level from a group of genes related to intelligence. With IVF Intelligence could be predicted, we just need better tests to estimate IQ from Genes it requires more research.

[Anonymous No.10352999]

>>10352988
IQ, human health, and eugenics is far more complex than that. You say:

>is a much more realistic approach
I say, compared to what?

[Anonymous No.10353005]

>>10352999
gene editing, embryo selection would be less risky, than mistakes made in gene editing

[Anonymous No.10353012]

>>10352977
While I agree with your goals & stance, I think what you're suggesting is misguided, likely ineffective, and far beyond what capabilities will be any time soon. I think you're offering up future solutions while ignoring current ones.

>>10353005
Ok. But again, the focus on genes is one of the reasons eugenics failed in the first place. Which is what this thread is about. Human health, development, and functioning goes way beyond host genes.

[Anonymous No.10353018]

I can't think of a single reason to support eugenics other than making the pathetic ar*an "race" finally achieve something.

[Anonymous No.10353067]

>>10353018
Did you even bother reading the 3rd link in the OP before offering your (likely uninformed) opinion?

[Anonymous No.10353073]

The real supermen left the planet thousands of years ago, we're the retards

[Anonymous No.10353115]

>>10352977
Humanity will be forced to expand beyond earth or suffer a population crash within the next few generations. At the frontier of that expansion the automation of menial labour will not yet be taking place. This is the reality of our societal constraints.

I concede your point on the damage to individual thought being snuffed out by indoctrination. This is something which is already taking place but on a less obvious scale currently. I would prefer to indoctrinate parents rather than their children. Certainly enforcing parenting classes on parents would make a good start.

Anything beyond that will not occur in the near term. This scale of social engineering is best done on the frontier of expansion as has always been the case throughout our history.

[Anonymous No.10353118]

>>10353012
I don't think it's a far-off tech at all, it's not like there's some technology here that we lack, and most importantly it's got the lowest risk of all other methods. Focusing on cause-and-effect completely skips over the incremental selection process and arrives at the end product in a single generation. Even with embryo selection we're stabbing in the dark to figure out anything more than "will this child have downs", perhaps extending to a few percent of general optimisation. But say we all select for a trait we believe to be beneficial in an embryo but it turns out to be related to early-onset dementia. Who the hell would want to ensure those medical companies against that sort of potential risk? By "related to XXX" I'm talking perhaps a 3% increase, but if even that can be tied to the gene editing within a reasonable standard error of doubt, you've made that step in the wrong direction and you'd be completely liable. By only beginning this cause+effect modification when you understand the entire (variable) genome, you completely prevent these unintended consequences.

Admittedly, my method requires wholesale harvesting of genetic+performance data, but all a company needs to do is offer ~$100 bounty for an individual's data and let the volunteers roll in. Give a spit sample, fill out a 30 minute survey, get a medical examination. If you combine this with a service like 23 & Me, you could even get them to pay you to do this. We've already done this sort of classification for a few select human traits and related them to genetics (see polygenic scores) with R^2 of 0.3 or so, so it's obviously somewhat reliable.

Of course, I advocate for the same process of cause and effect-based data collection for microbiome and other cases also. Gut culture data harvesting would be easier than genetic for sure.

[Anonymous No.10353124]

>>10353115
So Earth will stagnate while the colonies become innovative and powerful?
>inb4 newtypes
>inb4 a colony drop wipes out sydney

[Anonymous No.10353128]

>>10353018
>eugenics started and ended with nazi germany
hey, look! I spotted the retard!

[Anonymous No.10353171]

>>10353124
History can be expected to repeat itself. Earth will have elitest pockets but will remain largely as chaotic or moreso than it is currently.

The colonies will also have elitest pockets but the general population will be more openminded and progressive.

[Anonymous No.10353181]

Eugenics happen naturally, ugly fat people can't even get pregnant.

I overheard a hambeast in my class say her 4 year old daughter is going blind..... wtf fucking geneticlets

[Anonymous No.10353183]

>>10352657
if low IQ people never created who pump my gas and fuel this pyramid government scam?

[Anonymous No.10353189]

>>10353183
You would, because you'd be the new brainlet who couldn't get a job elsewhere. Also:
>having someone pump petrol for you
You mutts to lazy to get out of your car and pump it yourself? Why is that even a job?

[Anonymous No.10353223]

>>10353181
Your opening statement is wrong, and you proved it wrong in your next sentence.

What you described - an unhealthy person creating another unhealthy person who then goes on to experience significant suffering - is why we need eugenics.

This goes far beyond genetics, and I would encourage you to read the OP articles if you believe something should be done about this.

>>10353183
Most people pump their own gas. Automation & robotics were also mentioned previously in this thread. It's the wealthy who fund the government, thus your comment seems to suggest the wealthy are the ones with the low IQs. While there certainly are very wealthy people with significant cognitive deficits, I don't think it's "the rule", nor do I think it's a good idea to encourage unhealthy/low IQ people to procreate in the event that they are rich.

[Anonymous No.10353230]

>>10352490
>and is likely why the vast majority of the US population is so incredibly unhealthy, poorly developed, and poorly functioning.
Correlation =/= Causation
The populace is that way because the powers that be have created a society that functions in such a way to make control of them easier.

[Anonymous No.10353256]

>>10353230
Did you even bother to read the citations (particularly the 3rd one) in the OP before offering your opinion?

[Anonymous No.10353317]

>reddit spacing
whatever.
here goes.
Eugenics is viable in that you can alter the behaviour/physical capacities of an individual through genetics, however society as a whole has demonstrated time and time again that it is unprepared to make any decision more important than when the mcrib should be back on the menu.
The best way to actually push eugenics forward is to take the reverse-environmentalism approach: come up with a product, sell it, make it commercially viable (god knows there's a lot of rich people with too much money and time on their hands), then use that money for more research (human genetics).
I'm still entirely against it on the grounds that simply because it makes the people around you "better" (it won't, people enjoy being assholes as soon as they find out they're better than someone else) doesn't mean it will make them happier. Science doesn't have a "scientists are dumb" problem, science has a "we need science programs produce MORE scientists that genuinely care about science rather than money" problem. An eugenics program simply does not even register on the importance scales right now, and even if it did, it's highly dubious whether pattern recognition is beneficial beyond a certain range (my money is that whoever solves the unifying theory will have a lower "peak" IQ than stephen hawking). For everything else not as specialized, the limits of this majority human achievement is bound by how many people we can he to help us, not by what we start out with, which we manage using capital.

[Anonymous No.10353343]

>>10353317
Sigh. Another person who clearly didn't bother to read any of the information in the OP before offering their uninformed opinion ._.

[Anonymous No.10353481]

>>10352583
>Parents are shit at their job
And the government would do a much better job, right?

[Anonymous No.10353507]

>We need eugenics to make a major comeback

Its already in full flux. Society itself is an artificially created eugenics program. Those who rise to the top prosper those who don't due to bad genes suffer greatly as a consequence. Bad genes for the program you get thrown in prison. Poor? You have limited assess to education/jobs. Same thing as having intrinsincly bad genes in relation to IQ, health, &c.

[Anonymous No.10353517]

>>10353507
>those who don't due to bad genes
Tremendous amount of ignorance on socioeconomic factors.

>sole focus on genes
Read the OP info before giving your uninformed opinion.

[Anonymous No.10353994]

>>10353517
>Tremendous amount of ignorance on socioeconomic factors.

Such as?

>>sole focus on genes

Yes eugenics is about improving "stock" which is determined by genes

[Anonymous No.10354221]

>>10352490
>>10352554
>>10352580
>>10352623
how can I get those arms? I can't build muscle. I hate myself

[Anonymous No.10354590]

>>10354221
pls respond

[Anonymous No.10355293]

>>10353994
Wrong. Read the OP & the links.

>>10354221
Part of it is genetics, part of it is gut microbiome.

An FMT (fecal microbiota transplant) from one of the people in those images would likely be very helpful. There's a related project on that in some reddit & facebook groups using the website microbioma.org.

[Anonymous No.10355301]

Genetics have become the bogeyman we blame all disease with unclear etiologies (basically 99.9% of them) on.

[Anonymous No.10355421]

>>10352528
>>10352580
Actual tl;dr
1. Eugenics wasn't advanced enough yet.
2. "M-Muh ethics" also killed it.
3. "We need eugenics again because people are fat."

[Anonymous No.10355425]

>>10352490
Medicine and computer technology will close the gap op

[Anonymous No.10355701]

>>10352528
Another /pol/-incel acting out their suppressed BLACKED fantasies.

[Anonymous No.10355711]

>>10355701
Another illiterate, willfully ignorant fool.

[Anonymous No.10356270]

>>10352490
I think if eugenics is to return it will have to be done only by the willful consent of the parents involved. In the past, eugenics was performed by governments as a way to "cleanse" their citizenry. This was a dystopian nightmare that entailed some of the most base unconscionable pseudoscience mankind has ever seen. Editing genomes to improve the quality of life that a child would experience is an interesting prospect. But, if it is done in any sort of coercive authoritarian manner, it will almost certainly devolve into serious evil

[Anonymous No.10356276]

>>10352583
>Eugenics is unnecessary and invasive.
>Standard methods of reproduction should be abolished. Sex is unhygenic and depraved anyway.
>Embryos should be fertilised externally and screened before being implanted in the womb. Parents should only be allowed minimal influence over their psychological and educational upbringing.
>Better than eugenics or the above will be corporate run cloning facilities utilising artificial wombs.
>Face it. Parents are shit at their job and eugenics doesn't solve that issue whilst maintaining a high degree of genetic variability.

Unironic support of Ingsoc from 1984
Unironic reddit spacing
You should perform eugenics on yourself

[Anonymous No.10356294]

>>10356276
Are the pictures posted supposedly the most desirable??

I think my sex drive gives me a good idea of the ideal girl. And the answer is: many of them.

Those tall muscular girls with intermediate tits are fine. But i also need short big tits big assf girls.
Slim withl big hips small tits. All hair colors . peared shaped slightly fat athletic short with insanely worked ass. Bubble butts. Tall model like with big tits.


I sincerely feel the need to have unprotected intercbourse with all those kinds of girls. Maybe more. I cant say one is the best. All of them together would be
Ideal.

Any evolutionary explanation for this?

[Anonymous No.10356301]

>>10352490
What do you gain from this? What does anybody gain from this?
Just more needless competition. Survival of the fittest is fine as is.

[Anonymous No.10356319]

>>10356270
Agree. But you're too focused on genetics.

>>10356294
>Any evolutionary explanation for this?
Perhaps you are unhealthy, and/or poorly developed, and/or have some parasite(s), any of which could be messing with your mate choice.

I've certainly noticed that a large amount of people seem to idolize very unhealthy women. But then when you take into account the huge numbers of obesity and overweight, and the vast majority of the population being significantly unhealthy, poorly developed, and poorly functioning, it seems reasonable that their preferences have been warped.

>>10356301
Read the 3rd link in the OP.

[Anonymous No.10356335]

>>10356319
>Read the 3rd link in the OP.
I read the bold text and it seems like scientists should get better at their job rather than average joe. I have no problems drinking antibiotics and eating carcinogenic deli meat till I get sick.

[Anonymous No.10356404]

>>10352580
Do you genuinely think that eugenics will fix any of those issues?

I think it could be an interesting experiment, but when it comes down to it I think you're looking for a miracle cure.

That said I'm a genetically predisposed to lots of mental health issues, and don't intent to have children, so I can understand and even applaud people who choose not to have children in the knowledge that their genes could cause more suffering than should be allowed. I think socially we should encourage that, but beyond incentivising with praise I think any harsher methods are unworkable. Inequality is already a huge issue, eugenics will probably make that worse, eventually leading to either war, revolution or some sort of dystopian society. Humans aren't known for their selfless nature, and our need to compete socially borders on psychopathic, almost to the same extent that our need to breed does. If eugenics could ever work it would have to be after we've solved our need to have a social hierarchy, and I don't think that will ever happen.

What might be interesting is incentive
programs to try to filter specific diseases and mental health issues, but the second you start saying who can and cannot breed, then that's not a society we should want to live in. Even if you think "great, I'll be somewhere near the top in this society", or are dumb enough to allow your pro-eugenics stance to be based on such an idea, you or your descendants could easily find yourself undermined and harmed by the processes you've campaigned for.

[Anonymous No.10356414]

>>10352624
Look up compatibilism. In fact spend some time reading about free will and psychology in general, it might help how you think.

[Anonymous No.10356423]

>>10356335

[Anonymous No.10356439]

>>10356404
>I think it could be an interesting experiment, but when it comes down to it I think you're looking for a miracle cure.

There is nothing "miracle" about the suggested "fixes" listed at the end of the 3rd link in the OP.

Yes, absolutely I think those suggested fixes would have major impacts.

>Inequality is already a huge issue, eugenics will probably make that worse
Absolutely not. Eugenics would drastically decrease eugenics by preventing unhealthy, poorly developed, poorly functioning people from being created in the first place.

>What might be interesting is incentive programs
That IS eugenics. That's exactly what this thread is about. Jesus. Even in /sci/ no one reads anything.

[Anonymous No.10356460]

>>10356319
So youre saying a healthy person only has one kind of ideal mate?

sounds to me like youre gay and since you dont ctually like women you get youru preferences from magazines

[Anonymous No.10356532]

>>10356460
I don't read magazines, and not liking unhealthy people doesn't make me gay.

[Anonymous No.10356553]

Why is this thread still up? These /pol/tards are retarded and don't care about the science.

[Anonymous No.10356616]

>>10356553
Which /pol/tards?

/sci/ isn't any better than /pol/?

[Anonymous No.10356818]

>>10352657
>>10352554
>>10352712
i agree with this, eugenics is a tool that we should use more, we only apply it on some cases like people with down syndrome, iceland has basically 0 %

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

>>10355425
i think this will be the future too but if the culture of outrage and SJW continues it will be imposible to advance.

at least we, as individuals, still have the option to use this tool.

[Anonymous No.10356823]

Fuck off /pol/

[Anonymous No.10356996]

>>10356823
Learn to read moron. Your comment shows you're just as illiterate and willfully ignorant as /pol/.

[Anonymous No.10357001]

>>10356996
Fuck off with your 100th attempt at bringing this cancer and not listening to what /sci/ told you repeatedly, back to /pol/ with you

[Anonymous No.10357010]

>>10356818

[Anonymous No.10357033]

>>10357001
Get the fuck off /sci/ you illiterate moron.

[Anonymous No.10357036]

>>10357033
Not your board /pol/, you true illiterate. I bet you don't even have a diploma.

[Anonymous No.10357044]

>>10352660
>sweaty

[Anonymous No.10357073]

>>10352490
>Because doing nothing about unhealthy people continuing to breed spirals out of control, and is likely why the vast majority of the US population is so incredibly unhealthy, poorly developed, and poorly functioning.
A ridiculous conclusion like this is why we need eugenics. You've contorted everything you see to this one core feature you take as a given, that the cause of all disease is genetic.

[Anonymous No.10357305]

>>10352490
>is likely why the vast majority of the US population is so incredibly unhealthy, poorly developed, and poorly functioning.
Oh yeah it couldn't be something like stressful lifestyles, poor mental healthcare, sugar and corn syrup everywhere, or working-class disaffection... Totally not possible...

[Anonymous No.10357316]

>>10353018
>>10356553
>>10356823
>>10357036

[Anonymous No.10357459]

>>10357073
>you take as a given, that the cause of all disease is genetic
Another illiterate imbecile who didn't bother reading anything before giving his uninformed opinion.

Wow, this board is just as bad as the rest of 4chan and 8ch huh.

That's too bad.

>>10357305
Poor diet is absolutely included as one of the causes. Next time read the material presented before giving your ignorant opinion.

[Anonymous No.10357662]

>>10352490
How do you propose to avoid the problem of severely reducing the human effective population size

How do you propose on avoiding selection drag on loci nearby genic traits that are correlated with but not known to be better

Did you realize that there is more variation within a population than between them.

How is eugenics preferable to personalized medicine.

At what level do you think our understanding is of the genome and why do you think eugenics is now appropriate, considering nearly all of the dark matter of the genome still is unknown in its regulatory function

Why should the government have this power of its citizens, and why should eugenics be proposed before more baseline social changes which will have a much larger effect on heatlh and wellbeing, such as amount of welfare.

[Anonymous No.10357677]

>>10357662
>How is eugenics preferable to personalized medicine.
Personalized medicine can't accomplish the same goals without effectively being eugenics.

[Anonymous No.10357684]

>>10352580
>because the health of the population has been exponentially worsening
Toppest of keks my friend, go back to poll.

[Anonymous No.10357696]

>>10352490
Instead of jerking of to pics of Darwin, how about getting out there and telling ppl there now is a requirement for fucking?

[Anonymous No.10357705]

>>10357696
>telling ppl there now is a requirement for fucking
Women are trying this, but men aren't growing taller fast enough.

[Anonymous No.10357709]

>>10357459
>Another illiterate imbecile who didn't bother reading anything before giving his uninformed opinion.
I read it. I'm not wrong in my interpretation.
>Duuuhhhh people not being able to handle environmental toxicities means genetic deficit duuuhhh
Yeah I got injected with tetrodotoxin and literally died. Had sodium channels, blew it again!

[Anonymous No.10357716]

>>10357033
why did the elephant do that?

[Anonymous No.10357765]

>>10357684
Another imbecile on a SCIENCE forum. Fucking pathetic. A good demonstration that the 3rd article in the OP is 100% correct.

>"developing countries are increasingly suffering from high levels of public health problems related to chronic diseases. It is clear that the earlier labelling of chronic diseases as “diseases of affluence” is increasingly a misnomer, as they emerge both in poorer countries and in the poorer population groups in richer countries. This shift in the pattern of disease is taking place at an accelerating rate; furthermore, it is occurring at a faster rate in developing countries than it did in the industrialized regions of the world half a century ago (3). This rapid rate of change, together with the increasing burden of disease, is creating a major public health threat which demands immediate and effective action." https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/2_background/en/ - https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/11/the-rise-of-chronic-disease/

Chronic disease has been drastically increasing over the past half century: http://www.ncsl.org/print/health/DHoffmanFF08.pdf - https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm

Mortality in midlife in the US has increased across racial-ethnic populations in recent years (2018): https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3096 “That death rates are increasing throughout the US population for dozens of conditions signals a systemic cause and warrants prompt action by policy makers to tackle the factors responsible for declining health in the US”

America’s Obesity Problem is Getting Even Worse (2018): http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2018/09/americas-obesity-problem-is-getting-even-worse/

The risk of developing an obesity-related cancer seems to be increasing in a stepwise manner in successively younger birth cohorts in the USA. (Feb 2019): https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30267-6

[Anonymous No.10357777]

>>10357662
>How do you propose to avoid the problem of severely reducing the human effective population size
That's not a problem that's a major need. http://www.everythingconnects.org/overpopulation-effects.html

>How do you propose on avoiding selection drag on loci nearby genic traits that are correlated with but not known to be better
This is gibberish, and ignores everything in the OP that criticizes the focus on genetics.

>Did you realize that there is more variation within a population than between them.
More gibberish.

>How is eugenics preferable to personalized medicine
Read the 3rd article. See the list of "fixes" at the end. You cannot replace those with personalized medicine.

>At what level do you think our understanding is of the genome and why do you think eugenics is now appropriate, considering nearly all of the dark matter of the genome still is unknown in its regulatory function
More evidence this person didn't bother to review any of the information in the OP before offering their uninformed opinions.

[Anonymous No.10357782]

>>10357705

[Anonymous No.10357788]

>>10357765
Check this out:
>>10357643

There are multiple factors, but aluminum oxide toxicity relates with the underlying pathophysiology of many modern diseases.

[Anonymous No.10357904]

>>10357677

[Anonymous No.10358228]

we need to revitalise Sparta