/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10722266]

Eugenics does not wo-

>Selective breeding of rats to become either maze-dull or maze-bright. Bright rats learn layout of maze quicker and with fewer mistakes after practice. After just 7 generations of selective breeding, there is virtually complete separation and no overlap between the two strains.

https://twitter.com/Scientific_Bird/status/1138727234355773441

[Anonymous No.10722294]

>>10722266
good luck for staying in power for seven generations

[Anonymous No.10722321]

>>10722266

It is possible to selectively breed populations of animals in a way that enhances certain traits.

Who knew?

[Anonymous No.10722333]

>>10722266
Eugenics doesn't work on humans.

Why? Because fuck you Nazi.

[Anonymous No.10722334]

>>10722321
>Who knew?
A shitload of people? Every single time this kind of discussion come up there will always the fervent faggot going about how intelligence is "too vague" of a thing to selectively improve.

[Anonymous No.10722342]

>>10722294
As long as they're busy running mazes, or generally being useless, I could see a monarchy being easy to control.

[Anonymous No.10722351]

>>10722294
Actually something simple like government incentives for people with certain traits such as high IQ given the lack of other methods for quantifying intelligence would be a fairly minor method and the most probable one to actually succeed and stay around for generations

[Anonymous No.10722357]

>>10722334
It'd be super simple too. Create a eugenics grant for healthy families and provide tax cuts to those that display desired physical and mental characteristics.

I'm not a fan of negative eugenics, but positive eugenics is a no-brainer, promoting an influx of healthy strong children could have drastically beneficial consequences within a few generation. Just a little pressure on top will help iron out genetic problems that linger in the general population. Entire genetic diseases could be wiped out, not by killing undesirables, but by choking the disease's existence with a healthy gene pool.

[Anonymous No.10722362]

>>10722357
If you think a tax cut is going to make people marry people they otherwise wouldn't you're fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.10722365]

are there any breeds of dogs that are smarter than wolves?

[Anonymous No.10722384]

>>10722362
You wouldn't have to go that far just have a grant setup where by families can apply for it and can then be tested and if passed will be eligible for benefits which could range from additional income and lower taxes as well as help for school fees and such all directed towards them having children and alleviating the financial burden of having children and encouraging more of them.

[Anonymous No.10722385]

>>10722362
I don't want to dictate marriage, but a tax cut of 10k-20k for a couple with a mutual health coefficient above 0.5 would be a good start.

[Anonymous No.10722392]

>>10722365
I think there was a study regarding this and the wolves were more intelligent as far as we could tell the dogs were only more responsive to human behavior which makes sense considering the lack of selective pressure for greater intelligence and us only selecting for certain traits to make them more responsive to humans and require more dependence on humans.

[Anonymous No.10722404]

>>10722334

the joke
your head

[Anonymous No.10722418]

>>10722385
>I love you Molly but If I marry Stacy uncle sam will give me that sweet sweet tax break

[Anonymous No.10722425]

>>10722392
working dogs have been bred for intelligence for hundreds of years though

[Anonymous No.10722429]

>>10722418
Are you being retarded on purpose he's saying that couples that are both healthy in this case have greater health than average will be the ones who can obtain the tax cut

[Anonymous No.10722433]

>>10722425
Yes and they're hyperspecialised for that very specific role which they are very good at it's just that wolves did end up scoring better which makes sense considering selective pressure they have to survive through

[Anonymous No.10722443]

>>10722433
so is there any case of Eugenics being more successful than natural selection?

[Anonymous No.10722467]

>>10722443
Eugenics has only had a few mild success in the times they've been attempted but have usually been abandoned given either the culture got wiped out or stopped the practice or in more modern times due to not enough understanding of the specifics on how to accomplish it and bad press

[Anonymous No.10722469]

>>10722443
However if you're talking about artificial selection there are honestly too many cases to count from literally any food you eat to any plant derived medicine you consume or even just walking outside and looking at a common horticultural plant

[Anonymous No.10722470]

>>10722443
there is no technical reason why similar process would not work with intelligence in humans, only political issues stand in the way

[Anonymous No.10722491]

>>10722418
We shouldn't be going around with numbers on our foreheads. Such a factor should only be calculated and released when a marriage is secured. Pair-bonding is an important process that shouldn't be messed with.

This isn't meant to change social behavior, but to incite personal desires towards creating a prosperous society.

>>10722443
Humans do not have natural selection. We actively use man-made technology in medicine to keep certain diseases and debilitations in the gene pool. Negative eugenics has been used by many countries, including the United States, through sterilization. Eugenic processes are actively producing modified livestock and plants for greater returns.

[Anonymous No.10722502]

I’m honestly confused that some people are against positive eugenics. Humans are not evolving naturally because there is no pressure on our survival. If anything we are only worse than our ancestors due to unhealthy modern lifestyles. We must put pressure on ourselves, force ourselves to be better and stronger for the future. We’re already sensing that human intelligence and advancement is stagnating when we thought we would be exponentially increasing. We would be exponentially increasing with eugenics as the most intelligent would find newer ways to improve the species, and so on, creating a positive feedback loop that makes us superior to the ominous artificial intelligence boogeyman. When anyone vocally opposes eugenics, I can’t help but think they’ve been brainwashed by some wealthy (((elite))) that doesn’t want humanity to improve.

[Timeline !5EJ71eKlNQ No.10722531]

>>10722502
>the most intelligent would find newer ways to improve the species
This entire line of reasoning is false. The higher degree of intellect achieved, the more singularity any solution stands out, given a finite environment. There will not be infinitely many new ways to improve the species, there will only be a few. Either eugenics will be what had been the entire answer, or something other than eugenics will become the means by which we eventually improve the species.

If you had a true appreciation for the complexity of Western civilization and thought, you would realize that the intelligent are only able to do what they do because a working class supplies them with surplus leisure, or time.

The reason we can't make eugenics work is because we don't know enough about our future environment to know WHICH traits will end up being favorable. Maybe sociopathy turns out to be better for survival on a long enough timescale and trying to breed empathy at THIS moment in time (to say nothing of any future movements) would offset our evolution in a manner leading to the eventual extinction of our species.

Tell me the one thing that makes evolution work and I'll consider revealing more information.

[Anonymous No.10722539]

>>10722531
>we don't know enough about our future environment to know WHICH traits will end up being favorable
>My Asthma, Scoliosis and decaying eyesight is the future of mankind. Bow down before the ubermensch and supply me with inhalers.

[Anonymous No.10722556]

>>10722531
>The reason we can't make eugenics work is because we don't know enough about our future environment to know WHICH traits will end up being favorable.

This assumes all people will be subject to the same strict eugenic policy and no unregulated procreation will be allowed anywhere. Otherwise eugenics actually increases the diversity and resilience of humanity, since instead of reproduction anarchy, you now have both anarchy and regulated breeding, exploring different avenues of evolutionary fitness.

[Anonymous No.10722559]

>>10722531
>The reason we can't make eugenics work is because we don't know enough about our future environment to know WHICH traits will end up being favorable.
What a ridiculous line of reasoning just because we don't know which specific traits will be required in the future doesn't mean we can not enhance and improve upon the basic human condition be it in a longer life span or enhanced intelligence and memory all of these things are a positive trait and it's difficult to fathom in what possible hellscape would these traits not be positive.

[Anonymous No.10722562]

>>10722531
>The reason we can't make eugenics work is because we don't know enough about our future environment to know WHICH traits will end up being favorable

Let me just take a wild guess here and say that higher intelligence will be favorable, period.

[Timeline !5EJ71eKlNQ No.10723286]

>>10722539
Finite pie argument. No matter which small fraction of genetic disorders you get rid of, the rest of the population will fill in the gaps. For all we know, all the traits that make us strong on Earth will make us weak in space. Asthma could be an attempt to uncover people who have the genes to survive low oxygen/atmosphere environments, and scoliosis could be relevant to generating bone structures that thrive in microgravity.

You think these traits are accidents, things to rid the species of, but you have no concept for the scale of environment that is indefinite time.
>>10722556
Yes already have that. Pushing for the current state of things as if it describes something not yet available only leads to exacerbation.

I deal in time travel. Leaving people to play out there lives as they would have had time travel never been invented is exactly default. Anything that is voluntary happens regardless. Only attempts to force one strict policy on everyone has the effects I describe, yes.
>>10722559
The modern era. We already have people who are literally incapable of forgetting anything. Go ask them about their quality of life.

Would be political for me to comment on longevity so I'll leave that point alone.
>>10722562
Intelligence increases the potential for stupidity along with ingenuity. The higher the complexity of your ideas, the more nuanced the ways in which they can be wrong.

[Anonymous No.10723294]

>>10722266
Where in the fuck did you ever get the perception anyone had said here. or even else where for that matter had said that selective reproduction for particular traits to be express was a faulty methodology?

[Anonymous No.10723315]

>>10722266
1. No one disputes that selective breeding for certain traits produces more individuals with those traits
2. Rats have vastly shorter generation cycles than humans, so any results of said breeding would appear on the scale of decades and centuries.
3. People have strong ethical issues with human selective breeding, especially on an institutional scale

[Anonymous No.10723319]

>>10722491
>>10722470
None of those deal with intelligence though
dogs have been bred for intelligence for centuries but are universally dumber than wolves why is this?

[Anonymous No.10723321]

>>10722539
congratulations you aborted Stephen Hawking good job

[Anonymous No.10723615]

>>10723286
>The modern era. We already have people who are literally incapable of forgetting anything. Go ask them about their quality of life.
Then they would be considered a failure and that trait would be regarded as negative if it is that bad and would then have to be altered any mistakes that are found in the process of eugenics can be found and corrected in a mere few generations and considering we're only proposing an extremely mild form of positive eugenics
see
>>10722384
>>10722385
>You think these traits are accidents, things to rid the species of, but you have no concept for the scale of environment that is indefinite time.
By the exact same reasoning these exact traits could also end us in the endless passage of time or our lack of initiative to improve our species and the potential future decline of our fitness from dysgenics can bring us down low just as you say we have no idea what future traits we could potentially need you also have no idea what traits are useful, however, we can tell you which traits we know are a detrimental and which traits are positive as of now
>I deal in time travel.
Why is this board filled with shizo's and why didn't i read this first before replying like i'm talking to a sane person

[Anonymous No.10723617]

>>10723321
You say that as if generations later you wouldn't have an overall improvement in the ability of hundreds of thousands and no one would have to be born slowly turning into a cripple

[Anonymous No.10723626]

>>10723319
>dogs have been bred for intelligence for centuries
they were bred for obedience, not intelligence

[Anonymous No.10723632]

>>10723321
no, you aborted Hawking and then made another, healthy foetus for him

[Anonymous No.10723643]

>>10723321

yea in order to make way for someone even smarter. whats your point beyond simply advertising that youd be one of the first whose lineages would be culled

[Anonymous No.10723693]

>>10723626
working dogs were always bred for intelligence as much as possible

[Anonymous No.10723696]

>>10723632
>>10723643
you prevented the birth of one of the most objectively brilliant people in history there's absolutely no indication anyone approaching his brilliance will be magically born just because he wasn't

[Anonymous No.10723754]

>>10723696
It'd still honestly be worth it towards bettering the species so people won't have to be born cripples

[Anonymous No.10723770]

>>10722362
>incentives don’t affect life decisions
I don’t think he’s the retard here.

[Anonymous No.10723777]

>>10722362
>>10722418
Believe it or not, incel, couples take financial costs into account when deciding whether to have children or how many.

[Anonymous No.10723781]

>>10722443
eugenics is a form of natural selection

[Anonymous No.10723790]

>>10723696
>you prevented the birth of one of the most objectively brilliant people in history
Yikes, you have to go back.

[Anonymous No.10723811]

>>10722266
bunch of autistics think they know whats best for society.

[Anonymous No.10723822]

>>10723696
>hawking
>one of the most objectively brilliant people in history
no. he was very intelligent, but saying he was among the most brilliant, say a hundred or so, you're way off the mark.

[Anonymous No.10723864]

>>10723696
A society created by eugenics will not I my have more Stephen Hawkings but it will also have better education systems and overall a better community of like-minded geniuses. IMAGINE such a society, and some random person says “I don’t know, guys, I think we should practice dysgenics and I flick diseases upon ourselves so we can create geniuses like Stephen Hawking through magic or something.”

[Anonymous No.10723901]

>>10723864
agreed

[Anonymous No.10723908]

>>10722384
is that you 1984

[Anonymous No.10723916]

>>10722266
>gives blacks a $500 shoe voucher to get sterilized
>???
>profit

[Anonymous No.10723931]

>>10723908
Are you implying it isn't already 1984

[Anonymous No.10724021]

>>10722351
low iq people would burn your government

[Anonymous No.10724040]

here is the thing. we either need eugenics or to allow natural selection to take play again.
we breed with such low consideration for our genetic fitness, and that is hwy we have gays, trannies, schizos, other mental retards, cripples and people who are fucked.
there is nothing wrong with practicing good breeding health.
so either let the faggots, trannies, cripples, and diseased kids just die no medical intervention. or breed them out.
if you want to rank based on morals and pick the utilitarian solution you would quickly see not letting them die or putting breeding pressures for a "nonviolent" eugenic practice are the most immoral solution because you are doing the most damage to more people internal, eventually leading to a total cluster fuck of diseased people.
and if you are too pussy to just off the diseased, then we can put social and economic breeding pressures to ensure good health by our breeding the diseased

[Anonymous No.10724070]

>>10722333
Go back to pol retard.

[Anonymous No.10724534]

>>10722334
oof

[Anonymous No.10724568]

>>10723822
Top 100 out of about 40 billion is beyond exceptional

[Anonymous No.10724670]

>>10724568
>hawking is one of the 100 smartest people to live
what's your ranking of neil degrasse tyson, top 10,000?

[Anonymous No.10724674]

>>10724670
well start ranking off your top 100 based on accomplishments.

[Anonymous No.10724697]

>>10724674
right after you prove you're not one of the billion most homosexual brainlets alive today.

you decided to actively make the claim hawking was in there. so what's your metric and your reason for thinking hawking is top 100 in it? i suspect you are just pulling sufficiently large numbers out of your ass that no one will want to brute force argue you're wrong, despite having absolutely no idea how these numbers relate to intelligence, or how you would even go about making that correspondence

[Anonymous No.10724836]

>>10724697
here are a few lists of his contributions to physics and cosmology.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_gravitational_physics_and_relativity
He's listed 5 times relating to gravitational physics and relativity.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmological_theories
Once relating to significant cosmological theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_black_hole_physics
Twice relating to important discoveries is physics relating to black holes.

If you can provide several hundred people who have objectively contributed more in comparable areas I'll concede hawking is merely top 1000/40Bn or so as opposed to top 100/40Bn

[Anonymous No.10724853]

>>10722334
whew kiddo

[Anonymous No.10724855]

>>10722502
>some people
heh, the whole western world is importing millions sub saharan blacks into the west to reduce the average iq of white people (and obviously reduce the number of whites), and you are here wondering why *some* are against positive eugenics..lol

[Anonymous No.10724884]

>>10724855
Legit question I've wondered about: If you reproduce with a high iq person from a lower iq race is your child still equally likely to be high iq? That is, is there some level of regression to a lower mean?

[Anonymous No.10724891]

>>10724884
on average? yes, the child will have higher iq than the father but lower than mothers

[Anonymous No.10724905]

>>10724891
you're missing the question. if the same father reproduces with a 130 iq asian and a 130 iq abo will the children both have the same expected iq or will there be more of an expected reversion in one of the children. two geniuses having children don't average a child as intelligent as them, there's some reversion

[Anonymous No.10724906]

>>10724040
>we breed with such low consideration for our genetic fitness
Meanwhile on another planet incels are bitching that women have gotten too selective. Personally I think the incels are more right then you are. The trend is for younger people to be more picky, not less.

[Anonymous No.10724907]

>>10722351
Too bad the opposite is happening and low iq people are incentivized to reproduce

[Anonymous No.10724932]

>>10723693
From a pool of dumb, dependent dogs.

[Anonymous No.10724935]

WHY do you insist on calling it "eugenics". Are you TRYING to piss off liberals? Oh wait...

[Anonymous No.10724942]

>>10722266
Looks more like it's possible to breed "maze dull" populations of rats, and to rebrand normal rats as "maze bright" in comparison.

So eugenics works (in rats) to make stupid people.

[Anonymous No.10724946]

>>10724942
Which is pretty much the objective of any power structure capable of enforcing eugenics.

[Anonymous No.10724949]

>>10724906
incels rarely believe they deserve to be sexually selected against. It's why they always blame the evil female actualization rather than the fact that they're literally the worst possible choices for a mate.

[Anonymous No.10724953]

>>10724942
how did you reach this conclusion

[Anonymous No.10725004]

>>10722266
>maze-dull
kek i'm stealing this shit, more highbrow racist slang terms are always good

[Anonymous No.10725017]

>>10724905
hypothetically they should have same or similar iq, but thats an impossible situation. There wouldnt be a problem and we wouldnt even need eugenics if there was abos with 130 iq (or even 100)

[Anonymous No.10725070]

>>10722362
People marry for dumb reasons. Ive known couples who only married for tax benefits. In the military I saw kids getting out of boot camp and getting married just for housing benefits.

[Anonymous No.10725952]

>>10724935
Because that's exactly what it is?

[Anonymous No.10726650]

>>10722266
>>10722321
Notice how all the /pol/tards miss the crucial phrase:

> after practice
Practice. Maze running is a skill.
NOT a trait.

Problem solving is a skill, not a trait.
Since IQ measures problem solving, it is the measure of a skill. Not a trait.

Genetics affect traits. Not skills. You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.10726679]

>>10726650

Genetics affects the ability to learn, dumbass. Read the paper.

[Anonymous No.10726754]

>>10726679

Not him but his statement is supported by the paper itself.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/1940-tryon.pdf

The selection for maze learning capacity did not translate onto other tests for general intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10727223]

>>10726650
The trait in this case is that they learn faster. Fucking Christ.

[Anonymous No.10727279]

>>10727223

They learn the maze faster but that faster learning did not translate to test activities outside the maze test.

[Anonymous No.10727287]

>>10722294
Not a problem if you cure aging.

[Anonymous No.10727294]

>>10722266
>rats undergo 7 generations of evolutionary divergence
>the result is a significant difference in intelligence
>humans undergo 3000 generations of evolutionary divergence
>this somehow magically has no effect on intelligence, by liberal logic

[Anonymous No.10727304]

>>10727294

[Anonymous No.10727308]

>>10726754
>>10727279

whether or not it translates to other cognitive tasks is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10727334]

God damn it I hate that /pol/ wants their garbage posting to be scientific
Almost as bad as the athiestshits

[Anonymous No.10727361]

>>10727308

Actually it is relevant because it parses out the difference between general ability/intelligence and specialized skill.

[Anonymous No.10727407]

>>10727223
> The trait in this case is that they learn faster
That's like saying that a criminal is genetically meant to be a criminal because he can run faster than the police.

Wrong. Come back when you understand what genetics actually are.

[Anonymous No.10727442]

>>10726650
>Problem solving is a skill, not a trait.

It is both a skill and a trait. There is no such either/or distinction in genetics, you pseud moron.

Genetics significantly affects the maze running ability in rats.

[Anonymous No.10727445]

>>10727407
>That's like saying that a criminal is genetically meant to
stopped reading right there, genetics has no intent

[Anonymous No.10727453]

>>10727407
>he thinks everyone has an equal aptitude to learn new information
Ok go adopt a black baby and turn it into Terence Tao

[Anonymous No.10727555]

>93 replies
>no mention that the Tyron rat experiment has been debunked 5 decades ago
is sci against the Scientific Method now or something?

[Anonymous No.10729656]

>>10723931
Its 2019

[Anonymous No.10729658]

>>10727555
It's more about the /pol/entific method these days

[Anonymous No.10729665]

>>10722266
If we implement eugenics we may as well implement gene editing on humans at which point eugenics becomes pointless.

[Anonymous No.10729828]

>>10727361
no it parses out aptitudes for learning different types of skills.

Jesus fuck. I refuse to believe that you really are this stupid.

[Anonymous No.10730210]

>>10722559
Longer life spans aren't necessarily positive, specially if they correlate with equally longer generations.
If your species doesn't breed very fast, you'll have a hard time adapting to sudden changes. If a species live long but breed for only a fraction of their lifetime, you'll basically have a huge sum of individuals who don't help you select for fitness very quickly but that still consume resources. This goes for both the infertile due to age and the infertile due to not having reached the mature sexual age.
Of course, that's more relevant in nature, where creatures mostly use natural resources and can't use surplus individuals to manufacture goods. And if you fix the reproductive span living longer won't be as bad. And last but not least, an old individual might still be beneficial for the group survival even if not directly reproducing.
But this is mostly a scenario to show that even if something helps an individual survive, that's not necessarily positive for the species survival.
And you haven't considered that positive traits might come with a trade off not worth in all environments, like higher energy consumption or decreased ability in other areas.

[Anonymous No.10730260]

>>10729828

Oh so now it's about learning "different types of skills". Just a few posts ago in >>10727223 you originally argued it was about the trait for "learning faster".

How about you just admit the fact you know fuck all about the topic, didn't read the research paper in question, got blindsided by the fact Tryon's own research admitted that eugenic selection for maze bright rats didn't translate to any other testing and now desperate to save face.

[Anonymous No.10730829]

>>10724836
You haven't even deigned to imply that "contributions" correlate with intelligence, much less asserted that those who "contribute" the most successfully are the most intelligent.

[Anonymous No.10730836]

selective breeding is obsolete. gene editing is both more effective and more humane

[Anonymous No.10730845]

>>10722266
Now take a look at what is happening to honeybees beeing raped into extinction by Varoa and you might comprehend why this is a really bad idea.

[Anonymous No.10731104]

>>10730845
You mean the honeybees we've made strains that are resistant to it?

[Anonymous No.10732517]

>>10730260
that wasn't me, you enormous tool

[Anonymous No.10732581]

>>10724884
F-1 hybrids are fucky. In all likelihood, yeah. But there's no sure thing.

[Anonymous No.10732583]

>>10726650
No shit, retard, they're testing intelligence. Not prescience.