[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 269 KB, 645x480, Richard_Dawkins_eugenic_tweets_645_480.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11610972 No.11610972 [Reply] [Original]

Why do pseudoscientists get so much attention?

>> No.11610976

>>11610972
99% are stupid.
Pseuds try to impress the 99%
Real niggas try to impress their fellow 1%

>> No.11610982

>>11610972
I don't know if I'd call Richard Dawkins a pseudoscientist because he's not even really trying to pass himself off as an active scientist anymore. He doesn't do research. He's a writer.

>> No.11610988

>>11610972
In pic related he's right though. Anyone claiming that eugenics wouldn't work is a brainlet

>> No.11611000

>>11610972
He isn't wrong though. Just like it worked for dogs, it would work for us. But it is, indeed, immoral.

>> No.11611004

Because they have better publicity

>> No.11611010

His book "the selfish gene" is awesome work. I don't know how much credit he should get for inventing those ideas, but his work in clarifying them was great.

>> No.11611014

>>11611000
Why?

>> No.11611023 [DELETED] 

>>11611014
Because I want have the discipline to not spread my seed wantonly. I'm the kind of guy who would nail the secretary, "just because".

>> No.11611025

>>11611000
>Humans are digs

>> No.11611027

>>11611014
Because I do not have the discipline to not spread my seed wantonly. I'm the kind of guy who would nail the secretary, "just because".

>> No.11611028
File: 34 KB, 600x600, dn-tux-cu3_grande.jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11611028

>>11610976
>Real niggas
>trying to impress

>> No.11611029

>>11611023
Oh so you mean you would forced to spread your seed/others can't can't spread their seed?

>> No.11611032

>>11611025
>Implying humans are somehow biologically different from every other living thing.
Cope.

>> No.11611046

>>11611032
>What is conciousness
Maybe you're no different than a dog, but don't speak for the rest of us.

>> No.11611051

>>11611046
>What is conciousness
I'm sorry, how do you measure that biologically again?

>> No.11611056

>>11611046
>>11611051
Also:
>Implying that dogs aren't conscious.
See:
>A 2015 study claims that the “sniff test of self-recognition” (STSR) provides significant evidence of self-awareness in dogs, and could play a crucial role in showing that this capacity is not a specific feature of only great apes, humans and a few other animals, but it depends on the way in which researchers try to verify it. According to the biologist Roberto Cazzolla Gatti (who published the study), "the innovative approach to test the self-awareness with a smell test highlights the need to shift the paradigm of the anthropocentric idea of consciousness to a species-specific perspective".[77][149] This study has been confirmed by another study.[150]
For citations:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Dogs

>> No.11611060

>>11610972
He's totally right, though. You can breed for favourable genes, but doing so would be immoral. It requires totalitarianism.

>> No.11611065

>>11611060
This is coming from someone who believes Dawkins and his 'new atheist' ilk are some of the cringiest niggas to ever walk the Earth.

>> No.11611067

>>11611046
>MUH SOULEINO
>MUH IMAGE OF GODERINO

>> No.11611105

>>11611051
>biologically
>>11611056
>consciousness=self awareness
>>11611067
Cope

Come on. I excepted more from you /sci/

>> No.11611110

>>11611000
>implying it worked for dogs

>> No.11611113
File: 56 KB, 705x973, Юрий_Кнорозов.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11611113

>>11611060
>doing so would be immoral
Why's that?

>> No.11611115

>>11611105
Ah, I see, you're one of those people who likes to throw terms around they down understand. Got it.

>>11611110
>Imagine not knowing the massive role dogs have, and continue to play, in human society.

>> No.11611122

>>11610972
>>11611000
>>11611060
Woemn are already doing this by for example only breedin with tall men. thats why people get getting taller. short men like me are literally getting eugenically removed by whores

>> No.11611132

>>11611110

You wouldnt even have a word like "dog" to use, if dogs were not created via eugenic selection on wolves.

>> No.11611159

>>11611122
Tall height is a dysgenic trait, reduces lifespan, increases cancer. Humanity will never achieve the goal of radical life extension with women in the way.

>> No.11611169

>>11610972
who ever denys this? is this literally just some sort of dogwhistle?

>> No.11611177

>>11611028
maybe impress is the wrong word but you know what i mean

>> No.11611184

>>11611122
LOL

>> No.11611244

>>11611115
Nom im one of "those people" who mix philosophy with science. You're just a popsci microphone

>> No.11611245

>>11611060
I would argue that there are ways to implement eugenic policies that don't require totalitarian efforts. One simple method would be to simply pay more intelligent & educated people money to have kids. Singapore does this, to a degree. Another idea would be to offer every girl hitting puberty $500 to get an IUD put in (and the same for boys if something similar is invented). Teenage girls tend to make very poor partner selections; preventing accidental pregnancies should raise the average father quality. And frankly save the government money overall; teen moms being heavy welfare users. An option to try to reduce known genetic diseases would be to offer free genetics testing, and offer people with said diseases money to get sterilized. Paying a man that test positive for Huntingtons $5k to get vasectomy would be an example of that.

>> No.11611251

>>11610972
you made the thread

>> No.11611261

>>11611159
I'd rather die early than live a manlet

>> No.11611265

>>11611244
>t. McPhilosopher
No, you're just a dumbass who confuses semantics with a good argument.

>> No.11611275

>>11611245
We already do this by giving black and poor people free abortions & birth control. How do people who rail against eugenics reconcile this fact?

>> No.11611281

>>11611265
You don't know what you're talking about because you can't define what you're talking about.

>> No.11611294

>>11610972
>Of course eugenics would work
Base—
>Let’s fight it on moral grounds
CRINGE

>> No.11611296

>>11611281
Listen here, you fucking retard, how exactly does consciousness (the metaphysical kind) prevent eugenics from working, eh? It doesn't. YOU don't know what the fuck you're talking about, now shut up, you pleb.

>> No.11611300

>>11611159
t. manlet

>> No.11611317

>>11611122
Get nature'd bitch

>> No.11611350

>>11611296
Consciousness makes 95% of all people instantly valuable regardless of their IQ or traits. I'd rather have 1000 conscious mediocre people than 200 smart people.

You will never understand this because you worship popsci dogma.

>> No.11611400

>>11611350
I can tell you're an idiot because your argument that eugenics wouldn't work on humans is based on the fact that you think it's immoral, and you posted it in a thread whose OP is literally about people who do this.

>how does consciousness prevent eugenics from working?
>consciousness makes people valuable

Do you seriously not understand how you've failed to address the main idea of that guy's post?

>> No.11611426

>>11611350
Oh, and for that matter, where do you even get the idea that eugenics necessitates or promotes a reduction in the consciousness of its subjects? Do you think that women selecting mates for their dick size is a stronger selective pressure towards the incidence of consciousness in humans than a program that pays intelligent people and artists to breed? You are seriously the dumbest poster I've seen all day, and yes I am mad about it

>> No.11611460

>>11611400
>>11611426
you didn''t understand the argument. It is that eugenics is ultimately not beneficial and ultimately sub-optimal as conciseness is more important than any other trait that you are attempting to give humans as you are not using what they already have, but in a higher amount
>where do you even get the idea that eugenics necessitates or promotes a reduction in the consciousness of its subjects?
That is usually implied as there as somehow you have to stop "weaker" people from breeding in order to actually do eugenics. Otherwise nothing changes.
>Do you think that women selecting mates for their dick size is a stronger selective pressure towards the incidence of consciousness in humans than a program that pays intelligent people and artists to breed?
That isn't eugenics. That is just practicing nature. Shut up already retard. Your edgy beliefs are completely basic as you're only parroting what other people tell you.

>> No.11611476

Hello, I am a new anon who isnt the person youve been arguing with

>>11611460
>a word that means "good genes" is referring to something sub-optimal

BUDDY.

Since you have such a boner for consciousness, you would have to agree that genes that leads to or promote consciousness are good. Those would be good genes, and things that lead to them would be eugenic. A deliberate attempt to propagate those genes would be eugenics.

>That is usually implied as there as somehow you have to stop "weaker" people from breeding in order to actually do eugenics. Otherwise nothing changes.

Where do you even get this idea? A lot of early 20th century eugenics ideas was purely how to get rich smart people to marry. Making sure smart people have lots of kids would have nothing to do with "weaker" people, and it would definitely work, and it would be eugenic.

>> No.11611501

>>11611476
>Since you have such a boner for consciousness, you would have to agree that genes that leads to or promote consciousness are good. Those would be good genes, and things that lead to them would be eugenic. A deliberate attempt to propagate those genes would be eugenics.
The body has no control over what is and isn't conscious.
>Where do you even get this idea? A lot of early 20th century eugenics ideas was purely how to get rich smart people to marry. Making sure smart people have lots of kids would have nothing to do with "weaker" people, and it would definitely work, and it would be eugenic.
Even if this what eugenics is, it is still sub-optimal as it is ignoring the potential contributions of the poorer if you also work to increase how much they breed. Dumb=/=useless and this is what eugenics don't get.

>> No.11611512

>>11611501
>The body has no control over what is and isn't conscious.

How do you explain how human beings are so disproportionately represented among conscious beings, if biology and genes has nothing to do with it?

Seems like your theory would predict a sizeable number of conscious rocks and trees, which as far as I can tell, do not exist.

> it is still sub-optimal as it is ignoring the potential contributions of the poorer if you also work to increase how much they breed. Dumb=/=useless and this is what eugenics don't get.

I dont think poor or dumb people are useless. I dont think they are without potential. I dont think that is representative of what eugenics people think.

If you know diabetes is really bad, for example, and if you know there are some genes that strongly cause diabetes, then, its hard to see how it wouldnt be eugenic to get rid of those genes. Would you really be saying "Hey, its possible that more diabetes is good. There is some potential there. Lets not try and reduce the prevalence of it."

>> No.11611526

>>11610972
Because the modern world is filled with pseudoscientists who read a few papers from Google Scholar nowadays. It's one long circlejerk that wraps around the internet and discards any notion of authoritative work, effort, putting time into a PhD, etc. The lazy man's means to know everything starts with Google.com and Wikipedia.org. Look at all the haplogroup threads that shit out from this site for further reference.

>> No.11611530

>>11611501
Why is "amount of consciousnesses" the only good you recognize? Wouldn't it be better to have a world with 300 happy people than 400 miserable people?

>> No.11611538

>>11611512
>How do you explain how human beings are so disproportionately represented among conscious beings, if biology and genes has nothing to do with it?
>Seems like your theory would predict a sizeable number of conscious rocks and trees, which as far as I can tell, do not exist.
Idk go ask early humans why they're the only creatures that can be based.
>I dont think poor or dumb people are useless. I dont think they are without potential. I dont think that is representative of what eugenics people think.
No, but you still ignore their potential anyways
>If you know diabetes is really bad, for example, and if you know there are some genes that strongly cause diabetes, then, its hard to see how it wouldnt be eugenic to get rid of those genes. Would you really be saying "Hey, its possible that more diabetes is good. There is some potential there. Lets not try and reduce the prevalence of it."
But you're ignoring that the diabetes are attached to a person. Sure you can "get rid of that gene" by not letting the person breed, but then you're ignoring the potential benefits of letting that person breed as their child could be more beneficial than the diabetes they are delivering.

>> No.11611541

Eugenics would lead to a society of blue-haired feminists. Cope all you like around it, but it's true.

>> No.11611544

>>11611530
>Wouldn't it be better to have a world with 300 happy people than 400 miserable people?
Why do the 400 people have to be miserable? With 400 people working together, surely they can find a way to end up happier than the 300 people

>> No.11611555

>>11611538

>idk

Reality is not how you are saying it is. It is completely consistent with conscious somehow deriving from our biology.

The proper thing to do is admit you are wrong. You do not something, (that human beings are uniquely conscious), and that something contradicts what you have been advocating (that there is nothing innately biological about consciousness). So you are wrong.

>you're ignoring the potential benefits of letting that person breed as their child could be more beneficial than the diabetes they are delivering.

There could be potential benefits. There is always potential. Theres always unknowns. But it makes no sense to say "Well, because there are unknowns, you must disregard the negaitves".

If I had to pick between two seemingly identical job opportunities, but one paid better, you would be insane to say "Well, I dont know which one is better, so I should disregard the low pay and treat both opportunities equal."

If there two medication, and one had a horrible side effect, you wouldnt be like "Well, the side effect is horrible, but I dont know which medication will really work for me, so I cant judge that horrible side effect against it".

>> No.11611559

>>11611555
You do not something -> "You do know something"**

>> No.11611571

>>11610972
Because this world is full of arrogant brainlets; 'ooga booga pre-calculus bad! But I want to be considered scienfitic!'

>> No.11611588

>>11611555
>somehow
So you don't know where it is coming from then
>The proper thing to do is admit you are wrong. You do not something, (that human beings are uniquely conscious)
Except as far as we know, they are as they were the only ones that build civilization, made nukes and landed on the moon. Meanwhile animals pretty much always act on their primal desires and next try to create art or argue on basket weaving forums
>and that something contradicts what you have been advocating (that there is nothing innately biological about consciousness). So you are wrong.
No. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
>There could be potential benefits. There is always potential. Theres always unknowns. But it makes no sense to say "Well, because there are unknowns, you must disregard the negatives".
But unlike with most factors in the world, you can work with humans to create a better place and use their consciousness to create more. Human value should never be under-valued.
>If I had to pick between two seemingly identical job opportunities, but one paid better, you would be insane to say "Well, I dont know which one is better, so I should disregard the low pay and treat both opportunities equal."
True, but we don't know where one has more benefits. You argue the one with more intelligent people has a higher payout while I argue that simply having more people will bring a higher payout.
>If there two medication, and one had a horrible side effect, you wouldnt be like "Well, the side effect is horrible, but I dont know which medication will really work for me, so I cant judge that horrible side effect against it".
No the actual way this work is to decide whether you would think 100 high IQ people would make a better medicine or 200 mid IQ people to make a better medicine.

You keep on leaving people behind and assume their capabilities which is foolish to do with humans

>> No.11611608

>>11610972
99% don't understand or don't want to understand nuance. Science/philosophy/math/etc all require precision which goes against natural human behavior. Humans aren't wired for specifics. We're wired for generalizations.

>> No.11611907

>>11611588
In both your counter claims, you said "Quantity over quality".

Why bring quantity into this? Its a totally external factor. Its not necessary. If you were going to create 1 new human, wouldnt you prefer it to be of better genetic quality?

I am not even sure the quantity point really holds up. It seems like theres just an intelligence cap for certain achievements. 200 medium IQ doctors cannot necessarily accomplish what high IQ doctors can.

For example, you couldnt pair up two average high school students, and through their collaboration, achieve a score twice as high.

>> No.11611915

>>11611608
Pure conjecture.

>> No.11611957
File: 28 KB, 640x640, UN pop projections +- half child sq no logo-144 ppi_0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11611957

>>11611588
>simply having more people will bring a higher payout.
You must be happy about our future as a species.

>> No.11612052

>>11611244
>Nom im one of "those people" who mix philosophy with science.
And you dare call anybody pseudoscientist

>> No.11612071

>>11610972
>heaven forbid

>> No.11612104

>>11611122
kek seething manlet get extinct

>> No.11612138

>genetically engineer other species for thousands of years
>"noooo you can't apply selective breeding to humans it wouldn't work!!!!"

Prove why eugenics would not work for humans while also explaining why screening for down syndromes and aboriting them is making them extinct.

>> No.11612156

>>11611177

You impressed me with those gets, my real nigga

>> No.11612428

>>11611000
>immoral.
Nah

>> No.11612434

>>11611177
the word you are looking for is flex.
as in flex on fellow niggas

>> No.11612446

>>11610972
>profresional atheist
>making a moral argument
*chuckles*

>> No.11612453

>>11611350
>I'd rather have 1000 conscious mediocre people than 200 smart people.
nigga what the fuck kind of scenario is that how can you have 200 smart people without consciousness?

>> No.11612459

>>11612138
>screening for down syndromes and aboriting them is making them extinct
is it really?
That's interesting, because it's not like downs spreads from other downies reproducing. I have a hard time imagining how aborting the downy somemhow stops his parents or siblings from passing along the capacity to produce another disease ridden child.

>> No.11612480

>>11610972
Because 4chan believes in and loves nothing more than pseudoscience.

>> No.11612490

>>11611014
likely because we'd come to some terrible realizations about the future of humanity and evolution as a whole and maybe make some reaaaaallllly reallllly hard choice.

>> No.11612534

>>11611159
>Humanity will never achieve the goal of radical life extension with women in the way.
True but more so because women in general have lower scientific literacy and are more distrusting of science than men.

>> No.11612543

>>11612453
You're taking to a retard

>> No.11612643

>>11611122
People are getting taller due to better nutrition. The trend of total height is going downwards because tall men usually breed with womanlets