/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11457168]

How do we breed better humans?

[Anonymous No.11457170]

>>11457168
Eugenics, obviously.

[Anonymous No.11457180]

>>11457168
kys to improve the gene pool

[Anonymous No.11457184]

>>11457168
Define "better".

[Anonymous No.11457255]

>>11457184
Stronger, faster, smarter

[Anonymous No.11457310]

>>11457255
I'm nature. Tell me, why are those things better?

[Anonymous No.11457547]

>>11457310

Because they allow us to better survive, function and secure our destiny in the Cosmos, plus improving our quality of life and experiences.

There is zero negatives, how is that not something worth achieving? Eugenics in the right hands would be a blessing to humanity

[Anonymous No.11457576]

>jocks
>better humans

[Anonymous No.11457580]

>>11457168
Eugenics.
>>11457576

[Anonymous No.11457592]

>>11457547
>better = fast + strong + smart
pic related is not fast nor strong but he has the power (money) to acquire those stuffs you were talking about

[Anonymous No.11457606]

>>11457168
Stop clamping and vaccinating.

[Anonymous No.11457629]

>>11457592

Yeah, and if he also was faster and stronger he'd be even more successful cause his image alone would generate cash (Sexual attraction)

[Anonymous No.11457645]

>>11457310
Strength to combat the creatures around you(more of an aesthetic in modern age)
Faster to out run the creatures around
Smarter to create weapons that make strength unnecessary

[Anonymous No.11457694]

>>11457629
If he was fast and strong he would become either an athlete or a generic chad, hanging out with dudes and fucking girls

[Anonymous No.11457709]

>>11457168
natural selection retard, its always happening

[Anonymous No.11457743]

>>11457694

Which is arguably a lot better than having tons of money, after all it is those experiences you mentioned that make your reptilian sense of purpose and meaning in life get fullfilled, not having shitlods of moneh

[Anonymous No.11457808]

reminder for the nerds ITT

[Anonymous No.11457835]

>>11457168
Only people above 115 IQ are allowed to breed. Physical condition doesn't matter, just check for heritable diseases.

[Anonymous No.11457965]

>How do we breed better humans?
We genetically modify a small highly intelligent gnome-like race. Think proportional but just small and light people, weighing around 90 pounds.
In a highly automated world with a large population and sophisticated machinery, a nation of physically small highly intelligent people will out-compete and dominate a nation with a smaller population of physically larger people. Physical largeness has become a group-dysgenic trait that does nothing but increase the overall resource and space requirement of a nation. Nations with large populations of physically small people will, for the same amount of resources energy and land space, produce significantely greater economic and scientific output whilst also having significantly greater military capabilities.

[Anonymous No.11457971]

>>11457576
Spotted the noodle-armed baby.

[Anonymous No.11457986]

>>11457576
But he went to Stanford

[Anonymous No.11457996]

>>11457965
What's the point of making men small and women large if you want to reduce the total resource consumption
This would still stay the same as before

[Anonymous No.11458003]

>>11457996
If you can't understand what's a shill for a fetish, it means you need some experience on /pol/

[Anonymous No.11458007]

>>11457996
the women would also be small desu

[Anonymous No.11458027]

>>11457592
>>11457694
>>11457310
What a silly stance to take. OP is asking about how to **breed** better humans. Undoubtedly any genetic determinants for "success" would be more obscure and untenable than normative ideas of genetic betterment such as intelligence, strength, health, etc. And these would most likely correlate with success/income anyway, as someone else has pointed out already. Otherwise, wealth accumulated would be primarily behavioural (as in, not bred).

[Anonymous No.11458042]

>>11457996
I've read the post twice and can't see any mention of men specifically being small or women larger. What the fuck are you smoking dude?

[Anonymous No.11458051]

>>11458027
There are numerous genes that specifically affect muscular hypertrophy and other traits.

[Anonymous No.11458071]

>>11457592
he is very smart tho. you should'vepicked some brain dead model who gets everything on a platter because of halo effect.

[Anonymous No.11458362]

>>11457168
OP pic is me btw

[Anonymous No.11459213]

>>11457168
unnecessary, environment is much more influential to the human population than intraspecies or at least intraracial genetic variation

don't worry about genetics when we're still eating polyunsaturated fats, fluoride, carragenan, iron fortified foods, all the retarded medicine, etc

[Anonymous No.11459765]

Is it possible to make a child like something from young age? I always hear most geniuses or smart people start liking something from an extremely young age and then become one of the best in that area. Be it chess, basketball, art, or anything.

Or is there a way to find out what my child will like from a young age? I want my sons chances to be the highest out of my future wife's womb.

[Anonymous No.11459824]

>>11457168
>promote casual sex
>promote online dating
>normalize serial dating
>normalize and legalize polygamy

[Anonymous No.11459837]

>>11457576
ahahahah seething faggot

[Anonymous No.11459850]

>>11457168

>Crispr
>strict Eugenics

Humanity benefits by having a big Gene pool anyways. For example, Someone that is not very strong, bright or pretty might be born possessing a Gene that helps him survive against a pandemic. Therefore the existence of such person might enhance the survival of the species.

[Anonymous No.11459862]

>>11457576
They are though.
>b-b-but im smrrter!!
No you're not. You were relegated to studying excessively to compensate for genetic weakness.

[Anonymous No.11459970]

>>11457547
The pic related isn't a strictly "better" human. He requires constant exercise, far more than a normal human would need to stay healthy.
His daily calorie intake is also probably higher than a normal human been.

[Anonymous No.11459971]

>>11459862
"genetic weakness" is defined within the environment that the organism competes in, in which case this future human >>11457965 is the genetic elite.

[Anonymous No.11460250]

>>11459971
Your technocratic wet dream where you're a genetically bastardized slave to Google and facebook overlords will never come to pass. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.11460262]

>>11459765

There are some services today that will let your future wife give up a bunch of eggs, then take your sperm and fertilize them, then you can select embyros. You would want to do this so you can select healthy children, which are generally correlated with smart and successful children.

Its not actually that far away that we could start selecting for intelligence. Tho I hear from experts its difficult to know right now how much of an IQ boost you could give your kids by selecting for the smartest embryos. If many genes impact IQ (which I think is the case) then it is unlikely that any of your embryos will have exceptionally different IQ from any other of your embyros.

[Anonymous No.11460266]

>>11459971

>"genetic weakness" is defined within the environment

Well, you dont have to define it that way. Like, intelligence is a great trait imo. However, there are evolutionary draw backs to being too smart. What evolution considers optimial is not what I consider optimal. So, a genetic weakness imo is not necessarily what the environment selects against.

[Anonymous No.11460270]

>>11459213

Except, people are not so different from how they were before all those inventions, and variation of phenotype today does not follow variation in polyunsaturated fats, flouride, etc.

So you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.11460274]

>>11457986
because he could catch a ball real well.

[Anonymous No.11460278]

Eugenics is broadly any process which leads to better genes. So, sounds kind of fucked up, but infant mortality is a eugenic process. I think high taxes on the rich is dysgenic, for example. Birth control is eugenic or dysgenic depending on your opinion of the traits it selects for. Online dating has had a huge impact on how people find mates, so it has some big eugenic / dysgenic effect.

Eugenics is not necessarily like a program from the government, or a genocidal campaign against someone.

So, answering "how do we breed better humans" is largely answered by what broad social phenomenon lead to the right people having children. Possible political social domains that could have important eugenic effects:
- Divorce laws and child support laws
- Taxes

[Anonymous No.11460279]

>>11457808
This quote gets posted a lot but that one about living an unexamined life doesnt. Sounds like cope.

[Anonymous No.11460299]

In western countries, high intelligence is negatively correlated with wanting to pass on your genes.
No one gives a shit about eugenics. If it really mattered, we would've never stopped doing it.

[Anonymous No.11460316]

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and crispr germline editing for everyone

[Anonymous No.11460323]

>>11460274
Well he did study communications, so yeah.

[Anonymous No.11460347]

>>11460270
>and variation of phenotype today does not follow variation in polyunsaturated fats, flouride, etc.
wrong, unless you mean things like the typical inherited features (africans: black skin, long arms, nose, lips, afro, etc)
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
fluoridated water produces a 7 IQ drop

[Anonymous No.11460355]

>>11460299
> Wanting to pass on your genes.

So, the negative correlation between fertility and intelligence is largely for women. Intelligent men, for the most part, are still having more kids.

I dont think its a matter of what women want, but it seems that modernity and bringing women into the workforce has been an effective distraction for women. They get locked into life choices that lead to them not having kids.

I think good can come out of all this: we are selecting for women who hate careers and for smart women who love kids. In the process we are losing intelligence over all. But as a first step we are creating sexual dimorphism regarding career ambitions.

>>11460347

I text searched "heritability", "family", and "genes" on that page. 0/0 for all three. If you dont control for genes, and you find a difference correlating with flouride consumption, then you havent proven flouride consumption is what really matters. Over and over and over again, controlling for heritability removes the impact of environmental factors.

[Anonymous No.11460373]

>>11460355
you want them to control for the IQ genes which nobody knows what they are? despite the studies being on the homogenous chinese children with 8000 participants?

>Over and over and over again, controlling for heritability removes the impact of environmental factors.
no it doesn't lol
this is like disbelieving in the entire concept of poison, do you want to pour arsenic in the water and lead in the air? only genes matter right?

[Anonymous No.11460495]

>>11460373

>you want them to control for the IQ genes which nobody knows what they are?

You dont have to know which genes are contributing to IQ to control for genes. In the same way that if you were investigating a murder, you might not know who did it, to know they were male, for example.

But I dont like admitting that we dont know which genes control for IQ. They can do GWAS studies now that identify which genes impact IQ. The problem is more so that there are too many genes that matter to IQ. IQ is greatly polygenic: every gene matters a little bit.

> this is like disbelieving in the entire concept of poison, do you want to pour arsenic in the water and lead in the air? only genes matter right?

Okay, well you didnt actually provide a study that controls for genes, so you dont know if flouride matters or genes.

I do think you would die if you drank arsenic. I dont know if death by arsenic poisoning broadly has more to do with genes or arsenic consumption. In world where arsenic consumption is very low and not greatly varying, then death by arsenic poisoning would be more due to vulnerability than the actual arsenic.

[Anonymous No.11461486]

>>11457168
That guy is almost too hot. I don't want to be walking around with a boner all the time.

[Anonymous No.11461534]

>>11457255
>stronger
Population is full of strong people. Unfortunately due to high strength, general violence leads to general decay of society.

>faster
Population is full of fast people. Unfortunately as people spend more time running, they get hit by cars more and death rate spikes

>smarter
Population is full of smart people. Unfortunately the smart society decided that utilitarian ethics are better for society, so they proposed population control and limit human civilization to just 1 million individuals all under a strict draconian rule of law. Society went no where and went extinct.


Good job.

[Anonymous No.11461588]

>>11457168
Nordic Ideal.

[Anonymous No.11461592]

>>11457310
Because that's what we want b b b bitch!

[Anonymous No.11462096]

>>11460495
>Okay, well you didnt actually provide a study that controls for genes, so you dont know if flouride matters or genes.
You don't need to control for genes in a large enough sample of a homogenous population because it's expected that genes like these will be distributed fairly randomly in the situation. It's up to you to prove that genes are immune to environmental input, which you can't because that's not how reality works

[Anonymous No.11462923]

>>11461592
nice cigar?

[Anonymous No.11462963]

>>11457580
>picrel
That's just Jojo

[Anonymous No.11463377]

>>11462096

>You don't need to control for genes in a large enough sample of a homogenous population because it's expected that genes like these will be distributed fairly randomly in the situation.
>distributed fairly randomly in the situation.

No way. Completely wrong. Genes are not distributed randomly. Not even slightly true.

[Anonymous No.11463382]

Get rid of all humans. Start over with gorillas

[Anonymous No.11463414]

>>11457310
The fuck is this post

[Anonymous No.11463418]

>>11459970
lol retard

[Anonymous No.11463424]

>>11458042
It's the picture dum-dum

[Anonymous No.11463454]

>>11459824
>>normalize and legalize polygamy
Females would kill other females within the same intrafamilial strata, themselves (due to near-sightedness or impulsiveness/emotionality) and their males (spite, emotions once again) in numbers far exceeding acceptable thresholds for retaining a stable genetically diverse population. They evolved to be just as competitive and (ultimately) aggressive as us, they just express this differently most of the time.

[Anonymous No.11463526]

>>11463377
explain the mechanism or reason for why genes would not be essentially randomly distributed among fluoridated chinese cities.

[Anonymous No.11463613]

>>11461534
>Population is full of strong people. Unfortunately due to high strength, general violence leads to general decay of society.
Strong people may have the greater potential to cause damage when violent, but where are there any statistics that show just being physically strong makes you violent? We might be less violent because roid rage would not be a thing if everyone were naturally strong.
>Population is full of fast people. Unfortunately as people spend more time running, they get hit by cars more and death rate spikes
Kenyans get hit by cars because they're retards, not because they're fast.
>Population is full of smart people. Unfortunately the smart society decided that utilitarian ethics are better for society, so they proposed population control and limit human civilization to just 1 million individuals all under a strict draconian rule of law. Society went no where and went extinct.
Smart people have views that are every bit as varied as the rest of the world. If universities before wokeness were any indication, probably more so.

[Anonymous No.11463809]

>>11463526

So, there is regional and economic chinese diversity. China is a diverse place, even within the han chinese ethnic group. The ethnic groups live in particular areas. If there is variation in the extent to which they implemented flouridated water, then it was probably along these regional and economic lines.

You sound so daring and bold "explain the mechanism why it wouldnt be random". Its such a simple story. A ethnic group went to a particular place, they had a particular social and cultural profile, and they implemented their own laws, or had their own particular willness to go along with certain policies. So, the policies and society are different in the places with different people.

Like, some regions of the US have tighter and laxer gun laws. Its not random, its in the places where the people really hate or love gun ownership. And the people in those regions are not random either, they end up in those regions due to their heritage and their history. The people in the south west US are not from the same stock as the people in the north east US for example.

[Anonymous No.11463818]

>>11463526
>>11463809

Continuing on, you ask me why it would _not_ be random. How about I ask you the opposite, why _would_ it be random? Pick any two variables in this world, they are probably correlated to some extent.

You have big bulky variables, like ancestry and water flouridation, and you have only what? 30 provinces in China which are all genetically distinct. It would be extremely implausible statistically that water flouridation and chinese ancestry would have no correlation.

[Anonymous No.11463863]

>>11457168
How do you define "better"?

Bigger and taller humans have more probabilities to suffer cancer and to have back injuries and pain in the second half of their lives. Real geniuses generally suffer depression and some have problems connecting with their same-age peers, the few really successful are those rare cases when they are gregarious.

[Anonymous No.11464058]

>>11463809
except that the water is naturally fluoridated

it's also well established that fluoride is toxic so this effect isn't surprising in the least

do you also do this genetic dogma on things like nutrition effecting adult height?

[Anonymous No.11464188]

>>11464058

> it's also well established that fluoride is toxic so this effect isn't surprising in the least

You keep mixing up the effect of something with its explanatory power regarding the variance of something.

Like, lets just take what you are saying on face value, flouride is super toxic and it lowers IQ. But, IQ is raised and lower by many factors, so how much does flouride contribute to _all_ raising and lowering. Possibly very little.

Getting shot in the dead _definitely_ kills you. But, it doesnt explain much about dying generally.

[Anonymous No.11464446]

>>11457168
Raise my salary.