/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11460433]

Eugenics would literally solve all of our problems. Tell me how I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.11460463]

I guess I'm not wrong after all.

[Anonymous No.11460493]

>eugenics
no need for that when you have natural selection and sexual selection, besides we still don't know a lot about the body to do something like this at a large scale and human societies favor quantity over quality

[Anonymous No.11460501]

Don't: say Eugenics

Do: say Gengineering

[Anonymous No.11460508]

>>11460493
I disagree. I think we can use taxes to lower birth rates, by taxxing stupid and sick people extra for having kids. It would be population reduction with eugenics occuring in the back.

[Anonymous No.11460522]

>>11460433
>Tell me how I'm wrong.
Not all our problems are genetic

[Anonymous No.11460526]

>>11460493
No, we can do it to humans, and safely, the only problem is that to see the results would take centuries at least, wouldn't be quick like selective breeding on animals.

[Anonymous No.11460554]

You mean genetic engineering and lab babies? Screw it skip the baby go for the adult straight away.

[Anonymous No.11460807]

Yes, it would solve a lot of our problems but also bring in a whole lot of new ones that would absolutely destroy our previous ideas of ethics, morals, and good-will.
For example:
>would it be constitutional to castrate people who carries bad genes?
>would it be child abuse to allow the parents to design their children the way they like, including the physical, mental, and cosmetic traits
>would it be moral for the country to establish breeding programs to have babies engineered to be the perfect soldier to serve the government?
>what if certain institutions and corporations also did the same and engineer their own test tube babies engineered to fill in jobs without questioning the system?

Explained better here
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

The idea of genetic engineering would literally result into a legalized and moralized genocide. In an overnight, we are in the world of Brave New World,

Whatever your opinion about it, the technology would still guarantee that never again shall civilization and humanity every be the same again

[Anonymous No.11460873]

>>11460807
I disagree, even though you gave examples close to dystopian futures, in the end, something like that will not happen. Something like this can be controlled, morality evolves over time and it does it by benefitting mankind

[Anonymous No.11460900]

>>11460873
Ah, yes, because we totally didn't do so much genocides in our history, right?
The idea of genocide is completely and utterly bunk because it is always founded on nonsensical beliefs and propaganda

But if, suddenly, we found a legit reason for it?
Morality shall collapse. Instantly.

[Anonymous No.11460909]

>>11460873
hey champ, the committee has decided your genes don't benefit the human race, and as such you and all your relatives will be sterilized. Too bad, but it's for the good of the human race ;)

[Anonymous No.11460956]

>>11460433
There's some hypothetical flawless eugenics program that would do something like that. Unfortunately you'd need flawless humans in the first place to develop and administrate it.

[Anonymous No.11460964]

>>11460433
They clamp and circumcise.
Also read brave new world.

[Anonymous No.11460970]

Worst part about Eugenics programs is that it won't even be used for the benefit of mankind.

No, the government would instead use it to remove "inconvenient" people

[Anonymous No.11462693]

It already exists, why else are there so many virgins on this site?

[Anonymous No.11462712]

>>11460433
I would define eugenics as an intervention (by means other than natural, kin, or sexual selection) with the purpose of binging about a genetic change at the population level such that the prevalence of undesirable traits decreases, or the prevalence of desirable traits increases. Note that ‘undesirable’ and ‘desirable’ are inherently ideologically defined, since we are talking about selection that does not involve typical evolutionary selection mechanisms. An example of this is selective breeding of livestock to increase milk yield.

In humans, as opposed to narrowly circumscribed populations of livestock / pets, this would not practically work for several reasons.

Humans are exposed to very different environments across individuals, so most of trait variation is not due to genetic factors but to differences in environment. One consequence is that it makes it hard to identify subjects who have desirable genetic characteristics, especially when considering polygenic traits that people would tend to think are desirable based on ideological reasons.

It is possible to measure genetic potential directly from genetic markers and what we know from this is that these genetic predictors perform poorly. We can also tell that there are many important, very rare genetic variants relevant for phenotype which we will never be able to identify. We thus have an absolute ceiling on our ability to assess an individual’s genetic fitness from either their current performance or from their genome and we know that the potential ability to do this is extremely low, far too low to be useful for selective breeding.

(comment too long)

[Anonymous No.11462714]

>>11462712
Animals are bred in controlled environments and have short generational times with large numbers of offspring. In these circumstances selective breeding can produce desired changes in a small number of specific traits. Humans on the other hand have relatively long generational times, low numbers of offspring, and massive genetic flow between populations (low rates of inbreeding). Selective breeding in humans would thus be extremely slow compared to other species.

Removal of undesirable traits assumes that: a) these traits arise directly from the genome b) that genetic variants responsible for those traits are present in the population and will disappear upon removal. Both assumptions are wrong because a) phenotype is a product of both genome and environment, b) many traits that are detrimental to fitness arise because of de-novo mutations that cannot be selected out, and c) recessive genes cannot be selected out when considering phenotype alone.

These are only some of the reasons that came to mind, but there are many more. Regarding its potential: selective breeding of humans in a tightly circumscribed population, besides being decidedly unethical (in my opinion), impractical to the point of impossible (for above reasons), will always come with deleterious and unintended trait selection. Yes we can select for traits in animals, but the species where we have done so are typically quite unhealthy too (dogs that look cute can’t breathe well; cows that produce a lot of milk develop chronic joint problems and produce milk with low protein content, etc). So its potential for trait selection is limited, and its potential to damage the scientific community as well as the population is vast.

[Anonymous No.11462719]

>>11460807
>Kurzgesagt
Ignored.

[Anonymous No.11462740]

>>11462712
>>11462714
This. /pol/tards see eugenics as something glorious, but ignore the fact that science says it won't work with humans.

[Anonymous No.11462750]

>>11460807
What WILL happen
>Rich people engineer their children to be perfect
>A genetic divergence greater than ever seen before between classes
>Stratification into a small upper class and lower class that is solidified by physical, mental, and resource advantages.
>The rich will not only keep getting richer, but they will keep getting smarter, keep getting stronger, keep getting faster, become immune to disease, etc

[Anonymous No.11462754]

>>11462750
Not possible, because of:
>>11462714
>>11462712

[Anonymous No.11462791]

>>11460909
>the committee
Hello, class C citizen. The governing AI has determined threshold-breaking deterioration of your intellectual capacity and thus deemed you unfit for further contribution to its goals. Please prepare for the utilization procedure at 13:10 UT.

[Anonymous No.11462818]

>>11462712
>We can also tell that there are many important, very rare genetic variants relevant for phenotype which we will never be able to identify.
>never
How so?
Otherwise you are very much correct. There is always a price, even if it's not readily apparent or not immediately paid.

[Anonymous No.11462854]

>>11462754
Referring to >>11462750
I'm talking about CRISPR

[Anonymous No.11462859]

>>11462818
>How so?
In poligenic traits, the genome can account for a large portion of trait variance, yet paradoxically GWAS only identifies genes that account for a proportion low trait variance individually. This tells us that there must exist genes that account for a disproportionate amount of trait variance but do so through combinatorial means that study of the genome is unable to bring to light when considering genes as isolated functional entities. What's more, even if this view changes and new tools arise that allow us to chart these currently obfuscated combinatorial mechanisms, it will be impossible to chart all relevant combinations because the search space is larger than what occurs in the population and rare variants will still be overshadowed by trait variance that is due to environmental variance.

[Anonymous No.11462861]

>>11462854
It still applies.

[Anonymous No.11462866]

>>11462719
What the fuck.
Kurzgesagt is one of the, if not THE most respected education channels in YouTube. They literally ask specialists before making their videos and link the findings for everyone to read.

[Anonymous No.11462872]

>the un makes a bold move to combat overpopulation
>making babby is now illegal
>every couple that wants one must first go through a background check
>genetics, iq, job situation, economics, etc.
>if they can't make a better than average human it's a no go
>high iq people and athletes gets a free babby making ticket
>rich people may buy a ticket

[Anonymous No.11462874]

>>11460970
>No, the government would instead use it to remove "inconvenient" people
And this is a bad thing why?

[Anonymous No.11462879]

>>11460433
eugenics have already happened for all of history and it's called hyper-gamy or choosing who you fuck

[Anonymous No.11462881]

>>11462872
or you could selectively choose who you fuck, just an idea

[Anonymous No.11462887]

>>11460501
Why not both?
>Engineered Lineages.

[Anonymous No.11462891]

>>11462881
People clearly don't work or think like that, anon.

[Anonymous No.11462897]

>>11462881
>>11462879
that's not eugenics, that's sexual selection

[Anonymous No.11462898]

>>11462881
I know for a fact that the woman who will bear the most superior children for me isn't the woman who I actually enjoy being around. Having rediculous stats doesn't prevent her from being a bitch.

[Anonymous No.11462900]

>>11462750
That's guaranteed to happen but it won't be too much divide because, economically speaking, huge division between the rich and the poor is a red flag of a bad economy.

First and foremost: we NEED labor everywhere. You may automize everything all you want but, as proven by the industrial revolution, it would only lead to more and more trades because the more complex a system is, the more specialized roles we need.

Automation of production killed dumb laborers but increased needed labor in machinery, energy, coal mining, and construction. What's more is that more production produced led to higher and cheaper supply that led to more needed people in everything such as clothing production, food industry, transportation, etc.

More produced goods then led to more people needed in retail and trade that further elevated the spending power of every citizen

You see here?
The higher the spending power of a citizen, the better and faster the economy grows as everyone gets to contribute in the economy

However, in an idea of gated community where only the Rich have spending power, is completely unhealthy. This is because, while the rich have huge spending power, they have very little daily purchases, which would lead business to have very little profit. The poor people are a major threat because they are bound to steal and loot just to survive, which would further damage business.

It is moronic to imagine a world where the entitled rich would continue to grow richer without a business that ever grows. No, you would get richer by collecting money without spending it but once the well dried up, it's over. Your business shall collapse and you would be forced to spend your money that would be distributed to everyone through their services and products.

The healthiest economy is where no one has money. The unhealthiest is where only one has all the money.

/biz/ should be able to explain this better but they invested in cryptocurrency, so no. Try /lit/

[Anonymous No.11462905]

>>11462891
they literally do, they just don't follow your ideas of what's better
>>11462897
sexual selection is natural eugenics, you are just mad cause you are not in charge of it
>>11462898
breeding with bitches would create more bitchiness in the world which may be suboptimal

[Anonymous No.11462907]

>>11462900
You're assuming that poor people wont continue to be poor labour slaves under a gene edited elite. Rich people need all kinds of services to maintain their superiority like weapons, soldiers and mechanical armour which in turn needs a poor people economy that produces food and clothing for them. There might even be a trickle down of gene mods into the pleb market as rich people create gene soldiers and mining slaves to increase the effectiveness of these industries.
Being rich is a tough job and not everyone is capable of doing it. Forget to invest in security? Say goodbye to your assets loser.

[Anonymous No.11462910]

>>11462900
Oh, and before you ask, yes
The healthiest economy is called communism. On paper, it leads to a utopia. On application, it's anything but and only a certain few has purchasing power.
It's impossible to achieve

I won't push any further on the topic though. I don't want to invite /pol/

[Anonymous No.11462912]

>>11462905
>hurr durr any selection is eugenics and I like arguing over words and not over things
here's the definition of eugenics, and it clearly excludes sexual selection:
>>11462712
>define eugenics as an intervention (by means other than natural, kin, or sexual selection) with the purpose of binging about a genetic change at the population level such that the prevalence of undesirable traits decreases, or the prevalence of desirable traits increases

[Anonymous No.11462913]

and who would be in charge of it? you? drumpf? bernie? hillary? nobody is stopping you from creating a town and doing selecting breeding with whoever you want, you could literally start today if you wanted

[Anonymous No.11462915]

>>11462912
>>define eugenics as an intervention (by means other than natural, kin, or sexual selection) with the purpose of binging about a genetic change at the population level such that the prevalence of undesirable traits decreases, or the prevalence of desirable traits increases
literally choosing who you fuck seems to fit that description, nowhere in your sentence says that it should be the government doing it, you can achieve the same by collective personal decisions

[Anonymous No.11462916]

>>11462905
She's a bitch because she's superior. Princess syndrome combined with having stats so high that she can do effortlessly what lesser women try hard at. The only way to reduce such bitchiness would be to flood the world with genetically modified women that can compete on an even level to her.

[Anonymous No.11462917]

nigga how are eugenics real, like literally choose who you open or close your legs for, like get a girl and have a baby lmao

[Anonymous No.11462918]

>>11462915
choosing who to fuck does not fit that description because it is sexual selection

[Anonymous No.11462922]

>>11462907
Not gonna happen because use your common sense, mate.
Why edit a human's genome to be dumb laborers when you could just engineer a robot for production and combat?

What you need are SPECIALIST roles that focuses on crafting those machineries and programs to create your much needed robots.

Also, produces food and clothing? For whom?
The poor cannot buy it and won't buy it because they have no money. Your business would make no profit but have to pay your taxes and bills until your company folds because you never had a costumer to start with.

Please refrain from taking inspiration from dystopian films and read something about economy.

[Anonymous No.11462924]

>>11462918
sexuality is how humans reproduce, how else would you do it? mitosis?

[Anonymous No.11462927]

>>11462918
at some point human reproduction will involve person A fucking person B and having a babby, how you get to that situation is irrelevant as long as you optimize who A and B are

[Anonymous No.11462928]

>>11462913
>Create eugenics village.
>HEYYY WE YOUR MAYOR. VOTED IN BY FAGSVILLE NEXT DOOR.
>Dear village chief we have decided that your community is too white and we have decided to rectify this by introducing these new families. This is expected to use 47% of your budget for the next year.
>Rapes in the community are part and parcel of living in a modern country. There is no sinister plot where the new families are taking women and locking them in their basement until they give birth. We and the local Fagsville police have determined that the women were lying and all the new beautiful babies were born from consensual relationships.

[Anonymous No.11462933]

>>11462922
People are cheaper. Gene edit one batch of humans and they self-replicate with no extra effort.
>Poor have no money.
It doesn't matter how poor they are as long as they can rub two stones together and sell their bodies then they will have an economy. You're the one using a dystopian setting in your assumptions.

[Anonymous No.11462934]

>>11462924
Embryo selection, genetic engineering, selective breeding, etc. Literally any means that don't involve natural selection, kin selection, or sexual selection. And to be clear if I wasn't, I'm not in favor of eugenics because it wouldn't be effective.

>>11462927
Ignoring the fact we can make babies without sex, the difference between sexual selection and non-sexual selection is that in the former, the reproducing individual picks the mate.

[Anonymous No.11462935]

>>11462928
so if it's impracticable at a town level, how will it work any better at a national level lmao? the satanic elites making the decision will be the same in both cases

[Anonymous No.11462937]

>>11462934
>selective breeding
that's literally what sexual selection is lmao
>Ignoring the fact we can make babies without sex, the difference between sexual selection and non-sexual selection is that in the former, the reproducing individual picks the mate.
you are going to get fucked either way, by a piece of plastic or by a piece of meat

[Anonymous No.11462940]

>>11462859
Okay, but it's more like "not realistic within foreseeable time frame" as opposed to "never". I realize that accurate simulations for even relatively short terms starting from the first mitosis with environments of very limited complexity are pretty much pure fiction at this point. But it should be possible eventually.
Although I guess the priorities of the civilization/species as a whole might just as well change so much as to make this irrelevant by then.

[Anonymous No.11462941]

>>11462935
>Who is stopping you?
>Lol who cares the elite will stop you either way.

[Anonymous No.11462946]

>>11462941
look, i'm just saying that if you can't even convince a decent girl to have a babby with you, you shouldn't be trying to manage the sexual life of the nation, simple standards

[Anonymous No.11462949]

>>11462933
>People are cheaper
Are you an idiot?
It takes 9 months to produce one, 10 years to be useful.
Robots take 1 week in the assembly line.

Also no, dumbass.
If they sell their body for your products then they are literally killing themselves. A declining population would result into the death of the country, dumbass.
Once everyone died for your products, who else would be your costumer?
So long as the purchasing power of the country remains extremely low, your business, along with everyone else, is doomed to die sooner or later

I don't blame you for your innocence, though
Economy, science, and philosophy are 3 different branches
I highly recommend reading all 3 fields though

Diversity in your knowledge is always healthy

[Anonymous No.11462954]

>>11462933
Also, no one's going to buy donated organs in a world of genetic engineering
NASA already has a small bioreactor that allows them to create human organs.

Used mostly for tests that would be unethical if done on an actual person

[Anonymous No.11462956]

>>11462937
>that's literally what sexual selection is lmao
We can keep jerking each other off here or you can do your homework and look up what sexual selection is.

>Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection in which members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with (intersexual selection), and compete with members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex (intrasexual selection).
Selective breeding differs, because mates are chosen to be put together not by themselves but by a selecting agent.

>you are going to get fucked either way, by a piece of plastic or by a piece of meat
You're missing the point.

>>11462940
More or less. It's not a theoretical impossibility, but a practical one. It is the combination of limited of population genetic variance and environmental variance that reduces our empirical ability to find combinatorial sets.

[Anonymous No.11462960]

>>11462946
Eugenics isn't about one on one. It's about carefully crafting a genetic future over multiple generations. It's like comparing knitting a scarf to designing luxury clothing.

[Anonymous No.11462972]

>>11462949
>>11462954
We live in a world where we skimp on steel in construction, make cars out of crumple foil and don't even dare look at the more powerful metals for anything beyond the most extreme budget projects. What makes you think complete automation is possible?
>Bioreactor.
>When you can just chop a random pleb up and there are literally billions more just waiting to be harvested while living off the grass they call grain.
Why replace a sheep with lab grown meat? A huge waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11463001]

>>11462972
Easy: common sense
If it was done by humans, it would someday suffer in human error.

Before you could chop a person, you need to wait for years. Years.
Lab grown organs take 3 months.
It is literally possible right now.
In their model, it is possible to use stem cell to inject on pigs that would produce organs that are completely compatible with human transfer. Harvest time is in 3-6 months only and half the price of normal donated ones

Or at least that's what they expected.

It was shut down due to ethical concerns such as
If it had 51% human organs, is it still just a pig?
If it grew a human brain, is it still just a pig?

Nice, isn't it? We just averted a major moral controversy at the cost of progress. It could have been good news or bad news, depending on who you ask.

If you're willing to learn I would love to teach you on a lot of things but I would have to go to sleep now.
I'll reply to you after.

[Anonymous No.11463002]

>>11462956
>More or less. It's not a theoretical impossibility, but a practical one.
Yeah, no argument now.

Do you have any personal feelings on the matter, though? As in do you like the fact that we're going to keep our illusion of indeterminism a while longer?
I'm of two minds regarding that. I very much want to fully understand the processes behind life and higher intelligence and yet at the same time the idea of being verifiably reduced to a carbon-based automaton is unpleasant. I guess it's hubris?

>It is the combination of limited of population genetic variance and environmental variance that reduces our empirical ability to find combinatorial sets.
What you meant to say was perfectly clear the first time, don't worry.

[Anonymous No.11463006]

>>11463001
Forgot to add: if you want to fix something done by humans, you need specialists to handle the problem. AIs can only go so far until they need humans to debug them.

[Anonymous No.11463024]

>>11463001
>>11463006
You don't have to wait for years. You can chop them today. The only reason you'd wait is for genetically improved material but you'll probably need a spare lung or kidney while you're waiting for the good one to be produced. Fortunately the ones harvested from plebs are as disposable as the rest of the body that you didn't need so you can just throw them away when the good stuff is ready.
If a bunch of mining slaves fuck up the worst they do is bury themselves or all die horribly. Just enlist a few more and the problem is sorted. However this is why I mentioned gene editing the mining slaves. If they are 100% genetically tailoured for mining then they wont fuck up because they are actually good at their job (and nothing else).

[Anonymous No.11463025]

>>11463002
>Do you have any personal feelings on the matter, though? As in do you like the fact that we're going to keep our illusion of indeterminism a while longer?
I suppose so, but I tend to treat those feelings the same way as lines of reasoning that logically end up in solipsism: I ignore them because they make no practical difference to how I live my life or my ability to enjoy it. Whether we are mindless automatons or minds isolated in a void of nonexistence, I live my life in the same way.

>What you meant to say was perfectly clear the first time, don't worry.
Cool, glad that the point came across. This being 4chan, that's definitely not a given, after all.

[Anonymous No.11463045]

>>11463025
Normally that's how I think as well, on both points. And that my sleep cycle seems to be matching yours at the moment. Just thought that it's somewhat ironic.

[Anonymous No.11463048]

>>11460493
>no need for that when you have natural selection and sexual selection
lol have you seen our selective pressures lately?

[Anonymous No.11463057]

>>11463045
It's the middle of the afternoon where I live, but regardless of time of day, great minds think alike!

[Anonymous No.11463104]

>>11462960
distributed computing > centralized computing

[Anonymous No.11463108]

Eugenics is already being employed and is called women.

[Anonymous No.11463114]

>>11463104
Sure if the goal is Max Plebius instead of Alexander God-in-flesh.

[Anonymous No.11463128]

>>11463108
Small words tiem!
Sexual selection: me want fuck her1, me no want fuck her2.
Eugenics*: me want him1 fucks her3, me no want him1 fucks any other her; me want him985 (son of him1) fucks her854 (daughter of her4), me no want him985 fucks her500..her800; [repeat for as many generations as necessary].

* - yes, that's only one example of applied eugenics.

[Anonymous No.11463130]

>>11460493
>natural selection and sexual selection
You're joking, right?

[Anonymous No.11463161]

>>11463128
You just made me realize that the people who are for eugenics will be the ones that get cut from the gene pool first.

[Anonymous No.11463194]

>>11463161
They tend to either pick desired and unwanted traits based on their belief system or just bend, distort and/or discard results if those contradict such a system. Ego can be quite a bitch and leaders (and especially self-appointed visionaries) tend to have rather hefty ones.

[Anonymous No.11463205]

>>11463194
Well, eugenics can still work, because there are some universal agree traits that are good and people from all belief can agree upon in it, like healthy and intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11463218]

>>11463194
If being a racist, sexist, homophobe is a desired trait then it can be planned for. There is no such thing as a perfect genetic sequence merely the most appropriate.
One group will want people who are resistant to change but flexible enough to accept new technology. Another group will want people who come out from the womb as diverse as a rainbow and can change their minds simply because someone said something they liked. Both groups will practice eugenics and feel eugenics is a good thing for society but their end products will be completely incompatible and likely war with each other to no end. There could even be a multi-tier system where low caste are selected for certain manual labour and servitude traits while the high caste are more focussed towards martial might and intellect.
Results are always up for interpretation. Just look at the mental gymnastics about crime rates where everyone has their own opinion on why things are how they are.

[Anonymous No.11463246]

>>11460433
I wouldn't exist, so obviously yes.
Pic related is my life.

[Anonymous No.11463565]

>>11462866
Anons hate them now ever since the vaccination and immigration vids.

[Anonymous No.11463921]

>>11460526
>No, we can do it to humans, and safely, the only problem is that to see the results would take centuries at least, wouldn't be quick like selective breeding on animals.
no it wouldn't, even on animals it sometimes has consequences. just look at domesticated dogs, Belgian blue cow, etc.
an example of how this can go wrong if you selectively breed Africans to be whiter with smaller noses, selectively breed for pure strength and athleticism, selectively breed for whatever beauty trend is popular, selectively breed for intelligence (i.e. head size because that's the only thing we know about intelligence), etc.
you can't just take millions of years of evolution and ruin every fucking thing because you watch too much porn.
natural and sexual selection are the best tool, it's just suppressed by modern society

[Anonymous No.11464018]

>>11463024
You really don't get it, man.
The point is that killing your own costumers is highly unsustainable. In a good economy, money must always flow from one person to the next in order to ensure that the trade of goods and services would continue to make everthing better for everyone. Not to mention that the population is finite and you're killing everyone

Your idea of an economy would eat itself and die.

Also, that's not how it works
No matter the gene tech
The perfect laborer would ALWAYS lose to a robot that needs no oxygen, can survive extreme climates, and cannot be poisoned by dust, chemicals, and pathogens.

Heck, if a robot falls, you need only to recycle them. And you can do it even after a month or a year

A dead person is edible only for 2 days.

[Anonymous No.11464048]

>>11462866
>in YouTube
Yeah, Alex Jones is the most respect host on infowars
Braindead tard

[Anonymous No.11464051]

>>11464048
Kurz does not own YouTube, dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.11464053]

>>11462910
Allow me to introduce myself

[Anonymous No.11464060]

>>11460433
>Tell me how I'm wrong.

Most of our problems are memetic.

[Anonymous No.11464064]

>>11460493
It's pretty clear natural selection hasn't effected humans for a while.

[Anonymous No.11464067]

If the ruling class does it right (eg. sequences everyone's genome and all that stuff) I would survive multiple rounds of eugenics.

[Anonymous No.11464399]

>>11464018
>costumers
Autocorrect program in phones is one of the worst things to have happened to the modern Internet.

[Anonymous No.11465794]

>>11460433

cringe.
kids actually watch this after 14 ?

[Anonymous No.11465795]

>>11463130

if your women choose to breed with Africans, it's still natural selection.

[Anonymous No.11465821]

>>11464067
but the ruling class is ALWAYS corrupt
corruption in ruling classes is inevitable and completely unavoidable

so this is all just pie in the sky fantasy talk if you think those fuck can ever be trusted

they will just breed a slave race of compliant morons. they just want control and power because it is addicting to dominate. deep down they feel stronger when we are weak. they can never be trusted.

eugenics should only be done at the cultural level never the legal or state level

[Anonymous No.11465870]

>>11464067
The fact you're here strongly implies otherwise

[Anonymous No.11466270]

>>11460433
your definitely right
but you'd BTFO by woke people
>>11460970
and how is that supposed to be bad for us?

[Anonymous No.11466283]

>>11460508
wow that's racist tho, how are you gonna convince congress?

[Anonymous No.11466291]

>>11460433
Eugenics doesn't solve tribal hate tho? Which is probably 90% of our problems. Unless you're talking about making a clone army to populate the planet with the exact same hopes and desires in balance with available resources so there's no need for infighting. What kind of world would that be tho? Boring af and if landed there via time machine I'd spend my life getting that thing to work in reverse

[Anonymous No.11466375]

>>11460433
Yes, all people marking people autistic wouldn't be even born if everything went out good with Eugenics.

[Anonymous No.11466532]

>>11462866
They're reddit tier nihilists who think "WOAH MAN U SMOLL UNIVERSE BEEG NOTHING MATTERS WUBBA LUBBA" is insightful. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11467006]

>>11460433
Why do we need eugenics? If you want to breed with someone "high IQ" then just do it.
>muh finite resources
Take at least 2 years of econ before talking about this

[Anonymous No.11467045]

>>11460807
No one was genocided in Brave New World retard

[Anonymous No.11468334]

>>11467045
Are you sure about that?
Ever thought how their society's roots were first built?
They were using the sick and dying as materials for conditioning children to feel indiferrence towards the loss of a loved one

[Anonymous No.11468567]

>>11460433
Terra Formars new chapter when

[Anonymous No.11468713]

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.11468968]

>>11460433
Amazing seeing the extreme Nietzschean influence on pretty much everything.

[Anonymous No.11469418]

>>11460433
Yeah, we could get rid of literal faggot inbreeds like OP.

[Anonymous No.11469941]

>>11460433
Don't trust human beings with eugenics we've had a bad track record
Almost every man made dog breed has several genetic flaws
not to count abominations like the pug

[Anonymous No.11469956]

>>11460433
enjoy being ruled by a group of 250 IQ chinks

[Anonymous No.11470089]

>>11469941
Not really.
Don't cherry pick on the show dogs
We had the Border Collie, Husky, Saint Bernard, German Shepherd, Greyhound, Beagle, Labrador, and other extinct breeds of war dogs
All bred for their purpose. Even the Chihuahuas were excellent snake killers.

Blame the rich fucks who just wanted something they can show off on fashion shows. Who the fuck thought that pugs, poodles, and other half-dead breeds are cute?