Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 219 KB, 664x520, dahg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10897306 No.10897306 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Are there any actual arguments against eugenics other than just "itz bad becuz the nahzees did it"?

Why are so many people against having the average person be faster, stronger, smarter, live longer and be more resistant to disease?

>> No.10897310

People don't like having the perception that they aren't in control of their self. Don't call it eugenics call it something like Practical Birth Policies or A Better Future For Our Children Act.
t. political adviser

>> No.10897325

>>10897306
women are in charge of eugenics, not the government. incels are the refuse genes selected for termination

>> No.10897334

>>10897325
What happens when the average incel can make a baby in a ziplock bag from human eggs he bought for $5K and got implanted with his sperm?

>> No.10897338

>>10897334
i guess a whole bunch more incels? probably would be good for the economy for them to spend their hard earned money on something like that instead of shitposting on image boards all day

>> No.10897342

>>10897338
And then in a couple generations incels become the majority and rise up turning the world into unga bunga grug ancap nightmare.

>> No.10897346

>>10897342
but no, then gays and trannies could have ziplock babies too so they’d counterbalance the uncles. cis hetero bag babies would disappear andy it would just be the gay/tranny party vs the uncle party, business as usual

>> No.10897350

>>10897346
*incel not uncle

>> No.10897363

>>10897346
incels, gays and tranny society
this would definitely lead to humans being the new livestock bought and sold, abortions will just be pushed older until you can abort up to 17 years old and since they're not people until they turn 18 you can buy and sell them like property
ancap future

>> No.10897399

>>10897306
Every practical effect of eugenics policies are the arguments against eugenics (i.e., "the nahzees").

>> No.10897452

>>10897306
Because our society and tech is not ready for it. I'm not saying in the it can't handle it but rather that shit is so lacking that being able to implement it in a procedural and efficient manner is not up to par and even then shit is expensive as fuck.

>> No.10897456 [DELETED] 

Natures eugenics for humans is Chad fucking all the girls while the incels get nothing. Guess what happens? The incels start destroying society because they have zero stake in it.

Imagine the uprising that will happen when we fine tune it. Imagine being told by a faceless organization that your seed isn't good enough.

Faggot

>> No.10897457 [DELETED] 

>>10897456
>Faggot
Why the homophobia?

>> No.10897458

>>10897456
you can still let them fuck just not breed
snip snip

>> No.10897459

>>10897452
and I mean in healthcare policy, costs of service detection of problematic fetuses, maternal care so on and so forth. Like sickle cell treatment is still a fucking joke. A fucking woman died in the UK due a very easy to deal with flare up because the fucking nurse didn't believe her so she was allowed to suffer then die.

>> No.10897461

>>10897457
Faggot is a GOOD word now. Hetero is the new insult.

>> No.10897462
File: 61 KB, 563x667, degeneracy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10897462

>>10897457

Because there is good reason to be scared of faggots. They are a symptom that your society is falling apart.

>> No.10897464
File: 97 KB, 413x413, 20190413_062333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10897464

>>10897306
Eugenics implies the overbearing presence of government that enables its existence. Eugenics cannot be implemented without trampling civil rights.

>> No.10897465

Who decides what a desirable trait is

>> No.10897467

>>10897465
4chan.org/pol/
they do

>> No.10897474

>>10897459
and it's like yeah we CAN use methods to help reduce it's rate but it's like why put the effort.. fucking Nigeria is doing a better job at genetic disease screening and testing of SCD and SCT then most western states do about anything really and imams are onboard with it deeply.

>> No.10897488

>>10897306
Because CRISPR will make it irrelevant, gene editing is simply more effective and more ethical.
I’m looking forward to a planet full of 6’6 winged aryan 150IQ fast-twitch dominant Übermensch

>> No.10897491

>>10897474
Yeah you CAN get stem cell transplant but hat costs thousands of dollars and since you have SCD your kids can have it or carry the trait. So yeah eugenics at the basic level if you can call it that does save money. Iceland barely Down syndrome people since they screen a ton but the very very few that do is because modern systems couldn't detect it for now.

>> No.10897494

>>10897488
>Because CRISPR will make it irrelevant, gene editing is simply more effective and more ethical.

But when and how much?

>> No.10897822
File: 402 KB, 854x876, PowerGap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10897822

>>10897306
There are always unintended consequences.
Just look into 'diseases of affluence' to see all the new problems created by something as seemingly benign as modern cleanliness / antimicrobial use.
You might be able to tweak your kid to have be stronger and live longer, but then he'll get early onset cancer or cardiovascular problems for example. Speaking of which, we've already had anabolic steroids for a very long time. That's another good example of how making one attribute better can make a lot of other shit worse for you.
Biology's trash in general. We should focus all resources on our rightful heirs which are machines.

>> No.10897835

>>10897822
>unintended consequences
This is the best objective argument long term.
The other argument, which is subjective and harder to parse is: giving the state that sort of power tends t be corrupting and no one trusts the state to draw the line. Everyone under 100 i.q. Is literally half the population,
And also, how do you enforce it? Most people find forced sterilization programs barbaric.
Are you going to be okay with rounding poor people up and strapping them down to surgery tables when they don’t want to lose their potency?

>> No.10897839
File: 77 KB, 645x729, serveimage[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10897839

>>10897306
>what is multiobjective optimization
>what are societal consequences of having "inferior" and "superior" classes of people
>what are rich people buying genes and poor people not being able to afford them
>what makes it different from incest after a while?

>> No.10897846

This fucking incel meme is out of control, half the posts on this website contains the word. What happened to virgin? Not trendy enough?

>> No.10897854

>>10897835
>Are you going to be okay with rounding poor people up and strapping them down to surgery tables when they don’t want to lose their potency?
To be fair you would obviously just put sterilants in the water supply and in staple foods of lower income communities. Rounding everyone up for surgery is a massive waste of time and money.

>> No.10897856

>>10897846
Christians are virgins, incels are wannabe degenerates. If you can’t understand while incel is a useful word you either do not know what incel means or are stupid

>> No.10897861

>>10897856
Cope incel

>> No.10897864

>>10897846
reddit. it's still summer after all

>> No.10897873
File: 23 KB, 517x541, 1559445903706.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10897873

>>10897839
>>what are societal consequences of having "inferior" and "superior" classes of people

Anon we already have that among economical, racial and cultural strata locally, regionally and globally and it's so fucking blatant.

Answer me thisboy. Hypothetically what if the so called untermensch happen to have good genes? So fucking what they are down there and we are up here.

>> No.10897876

>>10897873
We already live in a society where simply reaching university from certain economic backgrounds is an achievement. We live in a world where people barely hide contempt against people they consider their cultural and racial inferiors and not kowtowing to that atmosphere sets people off in a hissy fit because you aren't sucking their dick.

>> No.10897879
File: 1.96 MB, 1351x1938, apeWhiteBlack.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10897879

>>10897306
Who gets to decide

>> No.10897886

>>10897306
The Nazis are the result of widespread eugenics

>> No.10897889

>>10897873
>and we are up here
you're not up here anon

>> No.10897895

>>10897886
No the Nazis are a result of Jews fucking with their banking system.

>> No.10897897

>>10897334
You can get a surrogate mother today
As you can see they don't

>> No.10897921

>>10897306
>arguments
The west can argue all they like about it. I guarantee you the Russians and Chinese are already doing tests on humans.

>> No.10897930

>>10897886
The Nazi's were the direct result of the ending of WW1 and treaty of Versailles

>> No.10897932

>>10897306
somebody feed that poor dog

>> No.10897936

>>10897930
Combined with the rise of communist movements across Europe that were headed by a group of Marxist scholars who practically all Jewish.

>> No.10898312

>>10897879
I saw a documentry film about chimps, in which the chimps was affraid of water.
They was so affraid from falling into the water (10 cm deep water) that they was always holding to a tree branch, even when they was drinking.

>> No.10898342

>>10897306
because its hard lol, scientists cant even breed smarter rats without making them crazy imagine humans

>> No.10898385

>>10897306
its comes from a misunderstanding of evolution.

>people think evolution has a direction or purpose, it doesnt.

so selecting traits very narrowly for what we think might be best for humanity is very dangerous. If people went eugenics 1500 years ago we would assume make everyone real strong and able to work long days in the field and we would not have reached the techno development we did.

We cant say what the best traits are for the long term of humanity. Human discrimination in mating combined with warfare seemed to have historically worked pretty well as a form of eugenics.

Whats far worse than not having eugenics is having dysgenics. The Pill was a dysgenic "medicine" as the people who took it were on average smarter white people hence it reduced the number of intelligent people.

>> No.10898393

living beings usually dont want to die and dont want their reproductive rights refused
what part of "you shoudn't kill innocent people" law that basically every single society has had do you not understand

>> No.10898397
File: 144 KB, 409x354, 1560994067736.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10898397

>>10897306
Instead of practicing Eugenics, the art of selecting for desired traits in breeding programs, we should invest in the wellbeing and education of those already high performing students. The GATE program in the united states had set out to do just that, but it was (((shut down))) to redirect funds to inner city schools (which showed no improvement in test scores).

>> No.10898553
File: 331 KB, 245x175, E82DAE3E-09EE-442A-90D9-9BC082A8C130.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10898553

>>10898397
Gate was honestly kind of a joke though, at least at my middleschool it was just a "math is fun club" and dominated by the 3 most outgoing kids in the front row doing doubling contests with the leader in the front. While the other 25 smart but inverted/shy kids were crowded out. We just need more honer classes with much stricter rules for getting into them
>>10898393
Best post in thread.

>> No.10898562

>>10897310
/thead

>> No.10898572

>>10897306

Eugenics as it's generally understood is 'good breeding' so getting those who are socially desirable to have lots of kiddies.

The problem with this is you end up with a loss of genetic variation, and bad local areas of the genome to particular traits you are looking for can 'hitch-hike' and grow in a population simply by being close to the desired gene. By reducing genetic variation you become a lot more susceptible to lots of unexpected consequences as you can't really outbreed to refresh your offsprings genome.

If we consider CRISPR-Cas9 targetted gene editing (to avoid this hitchiking problem) we simply don't know enough to make it very effective - although you CAN get rid of familal genetic disorders which would be a good idea.

Overall genetics is v. complicated, and just because a gene is bad in a certain situation, e.g. homozygous it may be favourable in others (see the history of cystic fibrosis in caucasion population)

Avoiding all of this problem, eugenics simply is not as effective as pouring resources into improving the socio-economic conditions of humans, which is strongly correlated with intelligence.

Also you run the risk of creating classes of humans, which is not great for society, due to genetic inequality by something like wealth leading to health and an insurmantable advantage .

>> No.10898575

>>10898572
Why not just find the ideal human genetic composition and make every single human being a clone of that. Nobody needs to breed they just pop a clone out of the incubator and raise it as their own.

>> No.10898576

>>10897306
>Are there any actual arguments against eugenics other than just "itz bad becuz the nahzees did it"?

Have you considered that people find the idea of a society so totalitarian that it controls who can and can’t breed, and who with, disgusting and dystopian? Fuck off teenager.

>> No.10898582

>>10898575
this post reflects a really bad understanding of genetics/evolution

So if everyones a clone, and for ANY reason, the genetics becomes less than ideal (e.g. the very probably evolution of a bunch of viruses to exploit this extremely simple population) you'd have to depend on the very slow method of evolution/mutation to overcome it.

Long story short -->more variation = population has better adaptability which is very important for selective pressure

>> No.10898583

>>10898393
It’s immoral to breed beings into existence without even trying to prevent them having unnecessary diseases.

>> No.10898609
File: 19 KB, 400x400, 1269893534437.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10898609

>>10898583
it's moral to tell and explain to people that they shoudn't have kids if they can't afford them
it's immoral to force them to not have kids.

the entire point of "human rights" is allowing people to have free will and not be controlled by the state or other external forces, that doesn't mean you cannot change things for the better, as humans can learn from others which is how we've come to succeed over most other species.
the entire Africa situation could have been solved if the local states focused their efforts in giving the population correct sexual education and investing in public schools, however the governments there are corrupt and receive money from first world countries to keep the locals dumb so that they can be explored for near-slave labor, in order to reduce costs by outsourcing.

>>10898553
thanks, everytime I see an IQ thread or eugenics threads I sigh because it seems people don't understand the point of living in society
honestly I just fucking hate narcissism, it's the one thing I fucking hate the most. I hate narcissistic people who think they're hot shit over everyone else despite doing zero effort to be better. They think that if an eugenics program were stabilished they would live in complete bliss while everyone else they hate for being "inferior" would just be killed off without realizing the consequences of their actions, such as lack of consumers, lack of mass workers and the fact that none of those fuckers would want to work to keep society running in the first place. That's not even considering whoever started this eugenics program isn't a bunch of corrupt pieces of shit that would just use the excuse to allow breeding of the part the population THEY think it's "worthy". it's like /pol/posters who think that in a natsoc government, they would be the ones pulling the reins, when instead they'd just be dying of suffocation in a coal mine because their superiors tought they'd live because theyre "ubersmench" or whatever.
fuck it.

>> No.10898627

>>10898576
Well, it can be based on money. Capitalism is just a sort of totalitarianism.

>> No.10898635

>>10898627
Words have meanings

>> No.10898644

Honestly, It's already too late for Eugenics. The poor breeding has already happened.

>> No.10898657

>>10897306
Every selective breeding program in history has produced fragile freaks suited to only one task. This is not good for the future of the human race.

>> No.10898661

>>10897306
Legalized easy and safe contraceptives and abortion would do more good for society at large than a top down eugenics program.

>> No.10898675

>>10897306

Eugenic replaces the environment with an imaginary one, and genocide eliminates the variance from which comes evolutionary change.
...'nuff said.

>> No.10898688

>>10897306
>the average
Because that's not how diversity works.

Say you have a field of flowers. Each of them, individually, is beautiful and fragrant. There are myriads colors, bees love them, and every year new seeds are spread further and further across the field.

One day, some faggot comes along and decides that survival looks like exactly one thing, and tries to breed all the flowers together to make a superflower that can survive in any environment.

He goes on breeding, the red flowers into the green flowers, the greens into the blues, and the blues into the reds. He takes the most average from each generation and breeds them further, creating an incredibly average superflower with all the traits of all the flowers.

Since it is perfectly average, the color has become a very average shade of grey. The fragrance still varies between samples, but this is more an artifact of their not being an average smell due to lack of quantization method. Even so, much of the fragrance has been lost, and bees don't find this flower very attractive.

The same thing has happened with breeds of dog. Genetic diseases pile up and a purebred suffers the worst effects. We could easily fix it by introducing some natural mutt diversity into the otherwise fine breeds, but this is backwards and only leads to the same slopes as before. The curve of evolution works best when there's a diversity of genes to work with, and the pool can mix properly.

TL;DR: Evolution already does the thing you think of as "eugenics" via natural selection.

>> No.10898693

>>10897458

Not him but that still doesn't fix the issue. If the average person can't breed then they have little reason to contribute to society or infrastructure. Zero stake means no reason to contribute and every reason to retaliate back at authority.

>> No.10898869

>>10897839
>Implying all of this hasn't already happened or isn't happening now

>> No.10898872

>>10898342
A Chinese scientist made babies less susceptible to HIV through genetic engineering already. It isn't hard. Just tedious and muh ethics

>> No.10898882

>>10897306
It's bad because overly narrow selection is just asking for fragility of one kind or another. What you really want is a modest program of anti-dysgenics. Don't let people with severe genetic diseases breed, don't pay poor people to have more children, that sort of thing.

>> No.10898888

>>10898688
>and the pool can mix properly.
he's already mixed tho

>> No.10898896

>>10898888
Mixing is a constant process, as is mutation. You can't have one without the other. Evolution works because there's always some new improvement to propagate throughout the gene pool. The moment you decide that a final perfect state has been reached, you invite in the forces of extinction. Monocultures are not meant to survive.

>> No.10898904

>>10898872

Yeah and the projected trade-off is a shorter lifespan by several years due to cascade effect from the particular gene's removal. So unless the kids decide to be sluts for a living being less susceptible to HIV was useless. Especially since the whole point of finding ways to combat HIV is about prolonging one's life.

>> No.10898912

>>10898896
Sorry, anon. It was a bad joke.

>> No.10898924
File: 1.58 MB, 1920x2842, sanhanat-suwanwised-portrait-2-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10898924

Literally nobody in this thread would survive a eugenics test.

We must all be exterminated ASAP so we can stop breathing up Chad and Stacey's oxygen.

>> No.10898926

>>10898912
It may be a joke, but the fool behind such notions does in fact exist. While I did get the joke before writing my reply, my decision to write it supersedes that apparent humor of it. The fallacy ought be corrected before mass retardation causes another attempt at eugenics to occur, while brainlets consider retardation to be trivially removed via that process despite the complexity of gene identification as it correlates to trait mapping.

>> No.10898942

>>10897306
only a small percentage of a population needs to be self guided and aware. most are well suited as drones following primitive commands and basic instructions. eugenics would deprive the strong of humans most valuable resource: the apathetic, the pacifist, the fence rider, the egocentrist, and the victim.

>> No.10898966
File: 82 KB, 1168x756, fertility and education.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10898966

>>10897465
The market. Poor people should stop being rewarded for having children. Being a single mother is a career plan for some people, you get a house and a steady income, all because 'think of the children'. This needs to stop. The burden should fall on the irresponsible and there family. If they can't care for them, raise in orphanages and offer (voluntary) permanent sterilisation/long term birth control. Stop the incentive. The government should mandate 24hr childcare at work places/universities (think of all those female grad students delaying children until their 30s) and provide a tax incentive (2 or 3% deduction per child).
These soft policies would at least help reverse the trend. If you wanted to get serious eugenically then you could start proper sperm banks that focused on IQ, health and success, and have rigorous screening that highly rewarded the best donors.
Finally you need to change the whole education/propaganda around children. Currently we're being pumped with 'children ruin your life, don't get teen pregnant' during school, then children are destroying planet via climate change is the regular message in upper class newspapers. Instead talk about how important families are for the economy, the best time to start a family is with a steady partner in your early 20s, older fathers/mothers increase genetic abnormalities etc.

If I had the option i'd also definitely put down 10K for preimplantation embryo selection as well.

>> No.10899000

>>10898966
First clause of your post denies the rest. You're asking for a chaotic shift that doesn't give people that chance to update their values to determine if the world they're creating by doing that would be one that they ultimately want to raise kids in. You would have better luck making it so only people with families can vote.

>> No.10899005

>>10897306
Josh, you're just salty you were born fat, ugly, and from florida.

>> No.10899010

>>10897464
offer people $10k to get permanently sterilized. Selects for high time preference and stupidity, and wouldn't represent a large expense. It also wouldn't be "trampling civil rights"

>> No.10899025

>>10899010
Just realized something. Random incentives like that will draw in rational people. The actual implementation would thus imply refusing to euthanize (or sterilize) many of the individuals showing up. If not done well, the resulting wave of rejects will imply a social trend toward not even bothering to show up. Welfare systems appear to tend toward excessive queues, so this process might not ever break economic even.

>> No.10899047
File: 124 KB, 664x629, Fertility and women's education.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10899047

>>10898966
> You're asking for a chaotic shift that doesn't give people that chance to update their values to determine if the world they're creating by doing that would be one that they ultimately want to raise kids in.
What? Currently we do our very best to punish success. We increase tax progressively, we encourage intelligent women to delay childbirth first for tertiary education and then for their career, so they can desperately squeeze out a downs syndrome kid at the age of 39. These are very basic things we could correct or reduce the negative impact of with minimal disruption.
Reducing care and benefits for the children of irresponsible morons will be a tough sell, I agree, but it is essential. Being a burden on society should not mean you get a free pass to reproduce as much as you want with zero consequences.

This is the sort of shit we're dealing with here:
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31128969
If I remember correctly from a newspaper story, she was incapable of caring for her children and they kept on being taken away from her.
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9714000/9714582.stm
These stories are even worse.

>> No.10899058

>>10899047
meant for
>>10899000

>>10899010
Margaret Sanger ran projects like that for harlem blacks. All condemned as racist etc.

>> No.10899063

>>10899047
>burden on society
Your entire argument is pure /pol/. Everything you said is wrong and doesn't correlate with any of the solutions you propose. By underestimating the complexity of the problem, you've met a Bayesian minimum in your own beliefs.

>> No.10899069

>>10899063
Fucking blank slatist retards.

>> No.10899078

>>10899025
I disagree, rational people wouldn't take $10k for that. $10k is pretty much nothing in the scheme of things. The rational people that would take advantage of it are probably undesirables anyway

>>10899058
I actually got the idea when I was thinking about abortion policy over the years

>> No.10899087

>>10899078
Not that deal specifically, but any mechanism of a similar structure. There's no way to control the samples reporting in because all demographics network within themselves, and you just explained to everyone why the actual net worth of the offer isn't good enough. Nobody will do it for 10K, so the price will need to be raised. Periodically, over time, that type of mechanism will fall off. If it doesn't match a meaningful correlation in the gene pool, then it was just wasted money.
>>10899069
Reducing a seeingly nuanced perspective to an ideological category to dismiss also tends to a local minimum. Your stance can't be factored in because you didn't present one. This is /sci/ if you can't tell.

>> No.10899108

>>10898397
The struggle to survive doesn't care about how many papers you publish

>> No.10899116

>>10899087
I gave three perfectly achievable policy proposals that trample no ones rights, you've argued that these basic changes would be 'chaotic' (which part, the child care, tax break or reduction in benefits?) and make people question the world they'd raise children in, emotion based arguments.
As to the 10k proposal it's a perfect offer for people with low time preference and low income, as already stated.

>> No.10899117

>>10899087
>If it doesn't match a meaningful correlation in the gene pool, then it was just wasted money
not true. It costs more the bigger its impact is, so if no one uses it then no money is dispensed. Additionally, every child they don't sire will be a little less resources the government needs to expend on them, probably about $100k for a child whose family is at the poverty line

addressing something specific
>Nobody will do it for 10K, so the price will need to be raised. Periodically, over time, that type of mechanism will fall off
where did all the payday lenders go? Oh, people are still using them? But everyone knows it's a scam, why would they do that?

anyway it was a throwaway idea. I don't think it's practical for political reasons

>Reducing a seeingly nuanced perspective to an ideological category to dismiss also tends to a local minimum. Your stance can't be factored in because you didn't present one. This is /sci/ if you can't tell.
not the anon you're replying to, but you aren't as intelligent as you think you are. You've made no attempt to address any of the meat of his posts because you're too busy smelling your own farts. He's making concrete points, which you ignore in favor of useless abstraction

>>10899108
>The struggle to survive
my almonds are activated

>>10899116
>As to the 10k proposal it's a perfect offer for people with low time preference and low income, as already stated.
yeah this confused me. He said nobody would take it, when I specifically identified the sort of people who would kek

>> No.10899123

>>10899116
What is your argument?

>> No.10899149

>>10899087
>Nobody will voluntarily sterilise themselves for 10k

Lmao imagine actually believing this

>> No.10899150

>>10897325
Couldn't we use gene therapy for incels?

>> No.10899153

>>10899117
>no money is dispensed
This only applies if the process is fully automated at no extra cost. Something the government had leftover resources to do it with and just did it without spending any money. But as the process itself requires an intelligent agent to perform the selection and ensure that the reward system is not dysgenic in its own right, it means you're having an AI do it without pay. That's still slavery unless the AI volunteers to do literally all parts of the task itself.

In reality, (since we can't include AI in the solution) it would require people being paid to actually perform all the steps of the process, ensure payments, etc. The bureaucratic overhead determines the actual cost, not the pretend-break-even implied by "hurr if nobody uses it then it didn't cost anything" fallacy you just spewed into this here /sci/ thread.

>at the poverty line
Finally, a basis for some actual math.

How, since your strategy involves a constant change in the poverty line as a result of factors in the environment changing as a result of the program, do you propose we measure poverty such that this strategy does not cause continual erosion of all forms of diversity (which are essential and critical to a robust gene pool)?

>useless abstraction
All arguments in favor of the topic of this thread have been fallacious. If useless abstraction is to be levied conceptually (without context) then it by default applies to the very premise itself. It is on the claiming party to justify their stance if we're going to treat this like a formal debate.

>> No.10899162

>>10897325
Women are in charge of individual sexual selection. Your argument relies on a false unity among females, who default select for diversity in all cases. Eugenics is a system, while sexual selection is an emergence. The two cannot be conflated without causing genocide.

>> No.10899165

>>10899153
>does not cause continual erosion of all forms of diversity (which are essential and critical to a robust gene pool)?
You seriously underestimate the diversity of the human gene pool, especially in a multicultural society like the USA. No feasible eugenics program is going to create a monoculture of humanity.
You also show a lot of concern for loss of critical genes at the low performing end of the spectrum. What about the loss of genes due to the below replacement fertility of high performing individuals?

>> No.10899167

>>10899153
not reading your post, sorry. You've neither added meaningful content to this thread, nor have you made it entertaining

>> No.10899170

>>10899165
I already addressed that argument earlier, but people are ill-confident of their ability to gauge the intelligence of their intellectual adversary.

>> No.10899180

>>10899162
plenty of women don’t select for diversity. inter-ethnic couples are still relatively uncommon. anyhow incel genocide sounds fine

>> No.10899183

>>10899167
I'm peripherally willing to kill anyone that gets eugenics wrong. Even the slightest fallacy here is equivalent to either death threat or genocide, so I have to take the unfortunate side of death threats. On anything other than 4chan I'd be killing this thread with superior argument. Only here does the true face of human logic appear. No other forum would be cool with talking about considering what amounts to genocide.

>> No.10899186

>>10899170
I think you seriously overestimate your own, especially if you have to keep informing us you're so clever. You've not provided one solid argument.
>such that this strategy does not cause continual erosion of all forms of diversity
This is what you wrote. This is retarded, especially in a society with large parts currently with a TFR below 2.1 and mass immigration. I cannot emphasise this enough. This is the argument of a moron.

>> No.10899195

>>10899180
Incel genocide justifies incel doing school shootings. When you threaten someone, and they react, you consent to their reaction. Please do not consent to being assassinated any further than you already have.

>> No.10899200

>>10899180
>plenty of women don’t select for diversity. inter-ethnic
Ethnicity is a weak measure of genetic diversity. Your argument is once again /pol/ tier.
>>10899186
Your steelman attempt has failed and produced another strawman argument that is literally not mine to refute.

>> No.10899202

>>10899195
back in the old days, fags and incels wouldn’t just become hermits, they also often became monks or priests. but nowadays there is no socialized system to give them a role in society. that’s the problem

>> No.10899204

>>10899200
well inter-ethnic is as close to inbreeding that would be healthy. what are you saying, the world needs more sibling/cousin incest?

>> No.10899208

>>10899204
*intra not inter

>> No.10899209

>>10899202
That's a non-genocidal solution, thank you.

>> No.10899224

>>10899204
Ethnicity does not affect the biological health of the child. We can demonstrate this trivially. Your argument is once again: Deeply /pol/.

>> No.10899227

>>10898966
women vote, how are you gonna get rid of welfare?

>> No.10899232

>>10899183
internet forums are serious business, I agree. Some day President Anon will kill all the poor people and you're the only one who can stop him

>> No.10899234

>>10899224
i think you misunderstood me. i am not saying intra-ethnic couples are inherently good or bad, i’m just saying that women do not “by default select for diversity”. if anything they select for success/money, looks, and brains, and “diversity” doesn’t really enter the equation, and when it does, usually they go with mates closer to their ethnicity since for social reasons many cultures look down on marrying people who don’t look like the rest of the community

this is a totally non-/pol/ analysis. i for one am white and have a hapa gf and i support making ethnically diverse babies

>> No.10899253

>>10899232
You misread my argument. Please refer to >>10886835

I'm better armed than anyone, because my system of government is founded on truth. All the people who might try to enslave me can be shot, especially if they create a weapon in hopes of using it against me. My solution to gun rights is that they allow everyone to die, so it's not illegal to create guns. My solution to the problem of my government becoming corrupt is to commit a non-double-standard and allow myself to die. The reason anon responded in terms of enslavement is precisely because of my excessive monopoly on truth. They could do nothing by killing me expect prove that my system could not be corrupted or removed, and would far outlast my death. In doing so, I've created a government that is immune to bullets.

Show me another government that is immune to bullets. Show me the aeon where death can die.

>> No.10899262

>>10899253
anon, you've got autism. I'm sorry you had to hear it from me

>> No.10899265

>>10899234
This does not have any relation to prior argument.

>> No.10899275

>>10899265
yes it does, you said “... females, who default select for diversity in all cases.” which is false, and you accused me of saying /pol/ shit, both of which are false. so we can go back to whatever you were trying to argue earlier, you just had some gaping problems in your argument since your reasoning has steps relying on false statements which you need to fix before we can discuss productively

>> No.10899277

>>10897325
Holly fucking whatever floats your boat.

>> No.10899284

>>10899275
The same applies to all statements about my words.

>> No.10899292

>>10899284
okay then, seems like you have given up on trying to state your argument, so we can leave it at that

>> No.10899300

>>10899292
I'm against unsupported arguments, such as eugenics. If you try to say that I've assented to anything I'll kill you/let you die.

>> No.10899302

>>10899275
Different Anon. Are you says ng that rapist make all the decisions?

>> No.10899303

>>10899300
i am against government mandated eugenics as well, since i think that women are the rightful paractitioners of it and they’ve been doing it for centuries, it’s just that the people who lose out on it nowadays (incels) are becoming a problem and that is because society doesn’t take care of them any more

>> No.10899305

>>10899303
I'm against ossification on any social level, for reasons already stated.

>> No.10899307

>>10899305
ossification? becoming calcified? is that a typo or some meme i don’t know

>> No.10899326

>>10897306
Eugenics is literally pseudoscience

>> No.10899492

>>10897488
That is an inferior design, though.
The actual best design going forward is a bunch of 3'6" 250IQ gnome people who fly around on little flying drones

>> No.10899689

>>10899195
Fuck incels. I'm an acne ridden, acne scarred fuckboy with major confidence issues among other issues and I still got pussy.

>> No.10899694

>>10899326
Found the creationist

>> No.10899697

>>10898397
You mean treating the prodigies and savant kids as some kind of robots again? Fuck off.
And even then, the US elite-uni admission system already meets this purpose.

>> No.10899842

>>10898609
Are you legit retarded. None of the shit you say is groudned in reality

>it's moral to tell and explain to people that they shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them

Not exactly since many of these "moral people" find indirect ways to force it on or are ALWAYS obnoxious as fuck two-faced people and don't help people at all since they only offer "solutions".

>it's immoral to force them to not have kids.
Considering we have developed states that have done this shit in the past despite being the moral authorities of the world this means jackshit.


>the entire Africa situation could have been solved if the local states focused their efforts in giving the population correct sexual education and investing in public schools, however the governments there are corrupt and receive money from first world countries to keep the locals dumb so that they can be explored for near-slave labor, in order to reduce costs by outsourcing.

Again the bitching and moaning about population growth about African. Most faggots artistically focus on that instead of the actual real problems an ignore the natural decrease in pop growth rates lol.

>> No.10899847

>>10898572
>The problem with this is you end up with a loss of genetic variation, and bad local areas of the genome to particular traits you are looking for can 'hitch-hike' and grow in a population simply by being close to the desired gene.

You implying this isn't the case already? People of good standards can come form all backgrounds. They just won't restrict it to one group only ffs.

>By reducing genetic variation you become a lot more susceptible to lots of unexpected consequences as you can't really outbreed to refresh your offsprings genome.

I can get a population consisting of Sickle cell trait carriers from the ME, Africa, India and Europe and despite having huge variation the descendants of this group are guaranteed going to have SCD despite having large genetic variation.

>> No.10899848

>>10899842
>Most faggots artistically focus on that instead of the actual real problems an ignore the natural decrease in pop growth rates lol.
overpopulation is a real problem though. the best thing we could do is to help the major population growth centers (southeast asia and africa of AIDS gets solved) to slow their population growth. contraception is key

>> No.10899851

>>10899848
*if not “of”

>> No.10899853

>>10897889
I didn't mean me specifically lol. Just saying that we already have superior and inferior classes of people. Genes factoring in won't mean shit when it can't shake up the already cemented order.

>> No.10899864

>>10899848
>overpopulation is a real problem though. the best thing we could do is to help the major population growth centers (southeast asia and africa of AIDS gets solved) to slow their population growth. contraception is key

See here's the problem. You don't know much about Africa's demographic history or it's densities. There are fuckton parts of Africa with small ass densities .On top of that you think SEA is an issue for some weird reason. HIV already has medicine to keep it in check decades ago. How dates is you knowledge of shit in general?

>contraception is key

and this the shit people drone on and on about without realizing that it's much harder to implement then just spouting slogans or that other factors depressing family size have way more impact. Condoms feel like shit and tech hasn't improved for it for decades. We still use the same shit we did in the 60's.

>> No.10899868

>>10897306
It all depends on how it is done. Eugenics through killing like abortion is wrong because murder is wrong. Designer babies is eugenics, but avoids the killing.

>> No.10899873

>>10898924
But... I could kick chad's ass. That counts for nothing?

>> No.10899874

>>10899864
Male contraception is either condoms or snips snip. Nothing in between at all asides from withdrawal but that requires great skill but the cost of failure is high.

Female contraception on the other hand is way more developed.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action