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 ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 112 KB, 1200x1200, charles-darwin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12584828 No.12584828 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why is Eugenics considered debunked and bad but Natural Selection is accepted and unquestionable?

>> No.12584840

First: natural selection can be questioned, but it is accepted because it is an important component of the most sensible theory of evolution known (population genetics), which is empirically attested. I don't know what you mean by eugenics as being "debunked", though a point of contention with it is that it is subjective (what is "good" is up to a value judgement).

>> No.12584842

>>12584828
Just so you know, if by some stroke of luck, a eugenics program actually came into existence into the modern day, you would be the first to get sterilized

>> No.12584931

Why do people who advocate for human rights violations always assume they won’t be the ones getting terrorized?

>> No.12584956

>>12584828
>Why is Eugenics considered debunked

It isn't. Vast majority of countries today have laws based on eugenics.

>> No.12584976

>>12584842
On what basis ? even if anti dysgenics were put in place I would be ok with people who dare ask questions such as this, unlike leftists who do nothing but moral posturing to advance their own interests.

>> No.12585013

>>12584828
It's not debunked it's just some of the methodology involved is now disliked
>>12584842
>>12584931
If i have heritable genetic illness then it's good that i'd be sterilizied as it would be good if someone else had genetic defects they too would be sterilized as it is more evil to allow these to exist and propagate than it ever will be to stop them

>> No.12585020

>>12585013
While an extreme take on eugenics it is still a moral good to participate in eugenics although I personally advocate for a soft form of eugenics to combat the modern dysgenic trends

>> No.12585021

>>12584828
Because we should overcome our biology not succumb to it. That is what makes us human. We fight nature itself.
We will find ways to treat our genetic disorders and ailments instead of letting selection control us.

>> No.12585029

>>12585021
You realize eugenics is man deciding the selection in any selective breeding program it is man who is the selection

>> No.12585032
File: 511 KB, 1200x1125, 1607606467465.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12585032

>noooooooo you can't selective breed healthy, beautiful and bright people!!!!! It hurt my feeling, nooooooo, thinks of the trannerinos!

>> No.12585046

>>12585029
You are letting biology dictate who lives and who dies. You are choosing traits based on an extrapolation of our limited data on natural selection.
We are beyond that. We can use gene therapies, pharmaceuticals, surgeries, etc to model us into a much better humanity beyond the constraints of natural selection. Fight against your primitive notions. Understand that letting nature win is ultimately the end of humanity.

>> No.12585048

>>12585013
>genetic disease
Bullshit. Its all about aryan supremacy.

>> No.12585065

>>12585046
There is no "nature" to win or lose against it is only ever man and the knowledge that we use is little more than a tool just like all the rest that you've listed and using these tools is what will improve us as eugenics is simply wide scale gene selection in the same way that genetic engineering is generally small scale

>> No.12585068

>>12584956
This. I'm telling this to everyone. How can people be so stupid?

>> No.12585070
File: 27 KB, 400x400, 1472804266215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12585070

>>12584828
>Why is Eugenics considered debunked
Because (You) don't know better than Nature. As this guy >>12584840 said, "good" is subjective, and in the case of natural selection what is "good" depends on the environment in which you happen to find yourself, and that environment may change (as it happened for the dinosaurs and ice ages more generally).

Eugenics is no different than a planned economy, in principle. The idea is that the Communist Party (or the "scientists", in your case) know better than anyone what is good and what is bad, so they should plan everything out in advance. Nowadays we prefer to stick to market economies with some regulations (which also applies to eugenics, since as this guy >>12584956 said we do implement some eugenic practices in our societies; for example, the prohibition of incest is often explained away on eugenic grounds if moral arguments don't seem persuasive enough). Just as relatively free markets are usually more efficient than planned economies, by the same token we should allow people to reproduce how they see fit. The principle is the same: throw shit at the wall and see if it sticks. And it works much better than believing that you have figured out all the mysteries of life and so you know which genes are "good" and which are "bad".

>> No.12585073

>>12585048
Are you confusing Eugenics with ethnic selection? or are you implying that Eugenics would disadvantage those phenotypes?

>> No.12585083

>>12585065
You are within the constraints if nature's domain. This means you will lose.
If some cataclysm happens changing the environment drastically and results in traits we considered eugenic for our environment and period into becoming dysgenic, you have doomed us.
This is why we must outpace nature itself and break its edicts. We travelled across scorching deserts, survived treacherous beasts, flew in the sky, dove in the ocean's deep, went to the moon, eradicated and eliminated microbial scourges that wiped out millions.
Genetics is not fate nor destiny. It is our next challenge.

>> No.12585086

>>12585070
>What is IQ?
>What is intellectual capital?

>> No.12585090

>>12585073
Im saying eugenics is castrating non-aryans. In practice thats how it goes.

>> No.12585092

>>12585090
>What is abortion?

>> No.12585094
File: 90 KB, 1600x900, smug white cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12585094

>>12585086
>What is IQ?
Like age, it is nothing but a number.

>> No.12585102

>>12585070
>Just as relatively free markets are usually more efficient than planned economies, by the same token we should allow people to reproduce how they see fit.

In the good old days retards like people with downs syndrome were killed or cast aside by their parents, because they couldn't work the fields. It's only because of our welfare states that they do live on nowadays. Ironically the "free market" deemed them unworthy and they lived short lives and because of our ebil cummunism they live on and reproduce. With every generation due to welfare and better treatment their share increases. It would be best for everyone in society should they be sterilized. Nobody wants to have an autistic child.

>> No.12585109

>>12585070
That's a retarded argument and we can see trends that we are not just stagnating but also accumulating more and more shitty genes and defects over the generations because we have practically no selective pressure https://www.sciencedirect.c om/science/article/pii/S0092867419306324

>> No.12585120

>>12585083
Everything is in the constraints of physical law and saying we are "in constraints of nature's domain" isn't an argument and is just a blank statement saying "we're biological" and you can prattle on over meaningless drivel about "overcoming" Genetics if you wish but unless you have an actual answer it'll only ever be meaningless

>> No.12585132

>>12585070
We are practicing eugenics right now:
1.Paid abortion is allowed
2.People get fines and go to jail for commiting crimes
3.People are having childern at older age
4.Mass imgration is allowed
5.Homosexual relationships are allowed (bisexuas could just have childer with opposite sex)

No one controls these processes

>> No.12585230

>>12584828
Charles Darwin discovered where we come from.
Albert Einstein discovered where we are.
Sigmund Freud discovered who we are.

I like them very much.

>> No.12585245
File: 103 KB, 500x375, strawman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12585245

>>12584828
>Why is Eugenics considered debunked

>> No.12585267

>>12584828
because man is above the animals, you racist

>> No.12585277

>>12585230
And all have been or will be proven wrong.

>> No.12585289

>>12585102
True free market capitalism has never been tried.

>> No.12585300
File: 66 KB, 357x199, but how do you know that.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12585300

>>12585277
>or will be proven wrong

>> No.12585389

>>12584828
Cuz hoomahns.

>> No.12585421

>>12585032
You realize autism is partly genetic right?

>> No.12585538

>>12585021
Eugenics is a way of treating genetic disorders for the entire population. As things like CRISPR are still in their infancy and will take time to work all the problems out of it.

Nobody here has any real argument against eugenics, it always boils down to someone complaining about how it’s immoral, but I could just as easily argue that quality of life is far more valuable than life in general as I could just post some pictures of some kid born with some terrible disfigurement that would be passed down if he ever had children and this could have all been avoided if the parents aborted or euthanised him and tried again.

The current live and let live attitude is self destructive and will only lead to ruin in the long term as dysgenic policies and behaviour cause every level of society to degrade slowly, but surely.

>> No.12585565

can't fuck with nature my friend, all animals that are a product of human artificial selection are so bad it's unreal

>> No.12585575

>>12585565
Dog owners are retarded in general. Dog races bred for a specific practical purpose are generally fine.

>> No.12585603

>>12584828
Because natural selection is law of nature, it happens even if you don't accept it.
You would (and should) be culled for posting this thread.

>> No.12585684

>>12585565
Not really some creatures like horses are bred specifically for certain roles and you can tell very easily.

Compare a working horse to a race horse and swap their roles to see the traits in action.

Unfortunately when you think of humans breeding animals the average person thinks of some fucked up pug. They were created to be fucked up, but we can create animals that are adept at very roles very easily.

>> No.12585731

>>12584828
Because eugenics means genocide and we're smart enough that we know that we need to not being only one here. We need diversity.

Eugenics is wrong, psychiaters literally make some genes unbreedable and their patients sterile, while it's good and desired genes, but having really bad luck to be "arrested" by psychiatrist for being so evolved psychiatrist didn't understand their speech.

>> No.12586576

>>12585070
>Because (You) don't know better than Nature.
Stopped reading here. "Nature" doesn't know anything because it doesn't have a brain - evolution is blind because it is driven by randomness and natural selection.
There are cases when humans know better and can control their evolution like preventing the spread of genetic disorders.
Eugenics would work only if it were implemented in a scientific manner.

>> No.12586582

>>12585731
>Because eugenics means genocide and we're smart enough that we know that we need to not being only one here.
No, it doesn't. Eugenics has bad press because of Nazis and that bad press created myths like this.

>> No.12586589

>>12584842
You mean to say that someone asking about eugenics with curiosity is automatically someone with unfavorable genetics and that a person with favorable genetics who makes statements rather than questions is more likely to be selected to breed in the program.

>> No.12586644

>>12585070
>Because (You) don't know better than Nature.
By that logic we should halt all wildlife conservation programmes. If the majority of species cannot handle the complete and rapid annihilation of the natural world then they deserve to go extinct

>> No.12586722

>>12584828
Science is descriptive not prescriptive. It tells how things are and not what to do. Natural selection is the cause for speciation. Eugenics is selective breeding for humans. Early eugenics was based on the idea that those of Western Europeans descent are the master race and all others (Eastern Europeans, blacks, and brown people) are shit, and if they wanted to keep it that way, they had to stop the mentally ill and half-breed mulattoes and niggers from breeding with healthy white Western Europeans. Though to be fair, whites are not the only ones with bigoted attitudes. The Chinese still think of themselves as the master race and all others, including Western Europeans, are shit (though they're far from the only other example).

I don't know much about modern eugenics and how much of it is race-based.

>> No.12586767

>>12584828
Jews don't want competition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAshkenazi_Jews/Archive_1#:~:text=Psychometrics%20research%20has%20found%20that,for%20Turkey%20according%20to%20Richard

/thread

>> No.12586777

>>12585021
Fuck off kike.

>> No.12587095

>>12584956
>Laws based on eugenics

Which countries?

>> No.12587606

>>12587095
All of them >>12585132

>> No.12587776

>>12585102
Downies are already infertile, no need to sterilize them.

I say you put them in day cares with vr systems, they are too stupid and their senses are too dull so they wont be able to distinguish vr worlds from reality, that way they don't have to be a public nuance, they don't have long lifespans anyway. Plus it would be funny. Also the parents should pay for it, if they don't want to ya pog the downies.

>> No.12587779

>>12585132
>3.People are having childern at older age
champ thats called DYSGENICS not eugenics

>> No.12588187

>>12584828
>Eugenics considered debunked
Maybe by a few idiots but most people just find it morally objectionable and don't claim it wouldn't work.

>> No.12588217

>>12585102
>Mixes up autism with down syndrome
>Equates welfarism with communism
>Doesn't understand the concept of free market.
>Thinks feudalism is free market.
>Generally, poor grammar and spelling.

I think we've got our first candidate for sterilization because of feeble-mindedness.

>> No.12588245

>>12585538
>As things like CRISPR are still in their infancy and will take time to work all the problems out of it
Incredibly naive approach.
>it always boils down to someone complaining about how it’s immoral.
Typical reddit approach. Introduce moral relativism to uphold a social ideology masqueraded as progressive science.
>but I could just as easily argue that quality of life is far more valuable than life in general
That sentence doesn't really make sense in the first place, does it?
>some pictures of some kid born with some terrible disfigurement
Most disfigurements are the result of environmental insults rather than genetics.
>dysgenic policies and behaviour cause every level of society to degrade slowly, but surely.
That's what every right-wing extremist has claimed since the 19th century and this argument usually boils down to the observation that the share of babies born to non-white people increases.
>Nobody here has any real argument against eugenics
Who decides what's good and bad and what should be selected for and against? You definitely won't
Tons of practical issues and theoretical infeasibility.
Second-class citizenship and political implications of eugenics.
Reduction of genetic diversity and the increase of depression effects.

>> No.12588274

>>12588245
>That sentence doesn't really make sense in the first place, does it?
The sentence is perfectly fine it's literally just saying quality of life has more weight than just living a shitty life and isn't that complicated of a statement
>Most disfigurements are the result of environmental insults rather than genetics.
I don't think he's implying it's purely genetics but the factors that contribute to it that are genetic in nature should be addressed
>That's what every right-wing extremist has claimed since the 19th century and this argument usually boils down to the observation that the share of babies born to non-white people increases.
Read on mutational load you tard
>Who decides what's good and bad and what should be selected for and against? You definitely won't
There are many genes that we can outright say are bad and every gene can be taken as a case by case issue, The basic question of "who will select it" will be geneticist as it's the only obvious answer to that mundane question
>Reduction of genetic diversity and the increase of depression effects.
Every single eugenicist alive is completely aware of genetic diversity and it's need and is why eugenics isn't likely going to be a global initiative besides pressure to remove objectively shitty genes,

>> No.12588296

>>12588274
How about this:

You shouldn't give a state any power that you wouldn't want the absolute worst possible state to have, because states and their policies can change very quickly.

Since it seems like this is what scares you the most, would you want to give the power of eugenic decisions to state that decides that white men are too dangerous, colonial and warlike to be allowed to remain in the gene pool?

This could happen overnight if you give a state the power to decide who lives, dies, or can reproduce.

>> No.12588302

>>12588296
The worst possible state would enact shitty things regardless of if eugenics existed or not and since eugenics generally has to last at least a few generation for improvements to be made it's a non issue for a government to be that shitty for that long.
Also i'm maori not white

>> No.12588324

>>12588302
"Bad governments have never held power for more than one generation"

-a smart person

>> No.12588331

>>12588324
Besides third world shitholes where shitty government has been their default state since their inception i'd say yes

>> No.12588349

>>12587779
Government does not encourage people to have children earlier. It means technically government is fine with having more genetically-sick people. They are not thinking that far, however. And no one is in control.

>> No.12588351

>>12584828
Eugenics? Debunked?!
Lmao

>> No.12588367

>>12588274
>Read on mutational load you tard
You didn't answer the question. Also, it's obvious you don't actually understand the concept of mutational load since it has nothing to do with what I posted.
>There are many genes that we can outright say are bad
No. Single-mutation and single-gene diseases are surprisingly rare. Also, quite francly said, a gene doesn't operate independently from other genes. It's not how genetics works. It again shows that you have no actual in-depth understanding of the topic.
>The basic question of "who will select it" will be geneticist as it's the only obvious answer to that mundane question
The same people who study the gene should also be given the task to decide whether or not the impact of genes is positive or negative even though the latter depends on the environment and the political and social approach to differences?
>>12588302
>Also i'm maori
Explains the low IQ responses

>> No.12588374

>>12588296
Fun fact. Nazis and Americans at the begining of 20th century knew nothing about genetics, but still practiced immoral eugenics. Turns out you don't need scientific evidence to do stupid shit.

>> No.12588382

>>12588367
Not him.
> Single-mutation and single-gene diseases are surprisingly rare
Thats a technical question. If we don't know what to cut, well, there will be no eugenics.

>The same people who study the gene should also be given the task to decide whether or not the impact of genes is positive or negative even though the latter depends on the environment and the political and social approach to differences?
If we know that a persons child will have 21 chromosome trisomy, wouldn't it be better if we take out his' offsprings zygote and fix it? Where is the harm? Doctors treat people, don't they?

>> No.12588400

>>12588382
>If we don't know what to cut, well, there will be no eugenics.
Gene-editing isn't what is historically meant with eugenics. Gene-editing likely won't have the same political dimension of oppression where people are forcibly sterilized, euthanized or discriminated against. Things people in this thread advocate for. Gene-editing is another issue which I won't talk about.
>wouldn't it be better if we take out his' offsprings zygote and fix it?
The question isn't whether or not we should fix the most debilitating conditions. The question is at what point we stop? If we cure the most severe conditions, why not cure less severe ones? Why not cure any form of anomaly regardless of the question whether or not it is deleterious.

>> No.12588417

>>12588367
>You didn't answer the question. Also, it's obvious you don't actually understand the concept of mutational load since it has nothing to do with what I posted.
Mutational load is the answer to the previous post of dysgenic policies and behaviour and is the new focus eugenicists generally take as we've been moving away from pure race focus to more specific issues
>No. Single-mutation and single-gene diseases are surprisingly rare. Also, quite francly said, a gene doesn't operate independently from other genes. It's not how genetics works. It again shows that you have no actual in-depth understanding of the topic.
I said genes as in plural and the wonderful thing about eugenics is that it's wide selection and thus has great ability to tackle the more complex gene interactions
>The same people who study the gene should also be given the task to decide whether or not the impact of genes is positive or negative even though the latter depends on the environment and the political and social approach to differences?
If it negative impacts ones health or fitness then it's generally a fairly obvious conclusion that's it's bad and if there is no obvious conclusion then we're unlikely to fiddle with it on a population scale
>Explains the low IQ responses
At least we have good memory

>> No.12588445

>>12588400
>Gene-editing isn't what is historically meant with eugenics.
You were arguing about CRISPR with this guy. And, no, I don't undersand how is gene-editing different form the eugenics. Only because eugenics have historical context? Because eugenics in the past did include sterilisation? Do you realy think you are arguing with esoterical Nazis here? Or what? You said in one of the posts that peoples perspectives may change.

>The question is at what point we stop?
I understand why you are scared, but that might not be the case. Some things will be cut out, some things will be inserted in the zygote. This process will be regulated the same way we regulate nuclear warfire now and the same way we regulate global trade in the world. There will be people who are against certain changes and for other changes.
If you are afraind of an opressive government, then, guess what, opressive government doesn't need advanced genetic technology to castare a certain group of people. LGBT is implementing new school policies without the need of science.

>> No.12588476

>>12584828
Exactly because. Eugenics means you don't believe in natural selection, or think it isn't doing good enough job, and artificial selection is needed.

>> No.12588573

>>12588245
Are you retarded of just pretending to be an idiot?

Let’s start with how you were incapable of comprehending quality of life by giving you an example. If a child is born healthy with no genetic abnormalities, good health both mentally and physically then isn’t that undeniably better than a child born mentally stunted like you with an ass for a face that will live a pointless life? Would you still claim that not intervening by aborting the obviously unhealthy child is not the right choice to spare him a life of suffering?

I’m not talking about disfigurements that are acquired from some accident like a car crash you fucking idiot as you obviously can’t genetically pass on losing a leg by a drunk driver to your child. And even if the kid is mentally ill because of something like the mother drinking then abortion would still be preferable for the reasons I stated in my previous paragraph as quality of life is more important.

Well if you claim that more non whites are causing society to breakdown then maybe you should write a paper on it.

Obviously a geneticist you fucking idiot, you are hardly going to let some unqualified fool do heart surgery on someone.

>> No.12588583

>>12588573
Monkeys would abort the baby that walked on two legs with that logic.

>> No.12588593

>>12585092
Abortion kills more blackettes but blacketas get pregnant more so it evens out.

>> No.12588601

>>12585132
Some policies with a random effect on reproduction are not eugenics. Eugenics is control, randomly doing X that indirectly affects procreation in a random way is not control.

>> No.12588606

>>12588349
A democratic government or at least a democratic politician (I’m referring to a politician from a democracy not the Democratic Party) would never implement or call for the implementation of a eugenics policy even if it was sound and logical as their support would absolutely fucking tank and I’m sure many politicians understand how appealing it would be in the long term, but they would probably lose their in the short term if they tried to call for it because unsurprisingly people find the use of abortion and sterilisation on it’s citizens even for good reasons to be abhorrent.

Even in dictatorships it can fuck your support for example when the NSDAP put in place a policy where mentally or physically ill people were euthanised it actually caused one of the few protests in it’s history and they had to publicly call it off tho they continued doing it just not publicly.

>> No.12588608

>>12585538
>infancy
Its like 50 years old

>> No.12588616

>>12585684
So what special purpose do you have for humans? Sexy humans for the harem? Fast humans to put up a challenge at the hunting reserve?

>> No.12588620

>>12586576
But natural selection is not random. It is a specific selection mechanism.

>> No.12588624

>>12586582
>Real Nazism had never been tried.

>> No.12588626

>>12586644
Fuck off nazi.

>> No.12588630

>>12588331
Its often different bad governments. Instability is worse than a bad government, really all you need is stable rules to plan for the long term.

>> No.12588646

>>12588476
Eugenics means you absolutely believe in natural selection, but because natural selection takes so long and doesn’t necessarily select good traits all the time (any trait can pass on just as long as it doesn’t fatally hinder the creature) so why bother waiting when we can have unnatural selection in which we do what nature does except faster, with better precision and a conscious behind each decision rather than waiting for the brutality of nature to do a half assed job over the course of millions of years.

>> No.12588658

>>12584828

Natural selection is unquestionable because it is an "is" statement. Eugenics is an "ought" statement.

But species are self-eugenic systems, so I don't see what the problems are. Implemented eugenics is just an opinion, bro.

>> No.12588660

>>12588583
Unless they believed that freeing up their hands for other uses would be better than using all four for purely movement.

And I have yet to see anybody create a convincing argument for why someone born brain dead should be kept alive aside from cruelty.

>> No.12588666

>>12588608
Yes and it’s still not implemented everywhere because they aren’t 100% sure that changing one gene won’t accidentally affect other genes otherwise it would be widespread by now and it doesn’t help that some retarded politicians intentionally hold these things back.

>> No.12588673

>>12588616
Just an example that eugenics can be controlled to prioritise certain traits above others.

>> No.12588684

>>12588624
I think what he is saying is that the policies associated with NatSoc are disregarded by the fact that the NSDAP used them regardless of how good they might have been.

In short real nazism was tried and because eugenics was a part of it that’s exactly why it’s looked down on.

>> No.12588688

>>12584828
Jews.

>> No.12588724

>>12585230
This has to be one of the most reddit posts I have seen.

>> No.12588727

>>12588601
Oh, yes, completely random. It's not like we have an actual statistic of demographical changes in the EU. Unemployment benefits are also definitely not eugenics.
Besides, I mentioned that no one controls these proceses.
Your definition of eugenics is waay too strict.

>> No.12588755

>>12588727
Oh i see anything that affects anything is control

>> No.12588802

>>12588755
Anything that affects directly or indirectly procreation ability or procreative statistics by government is eugenic politics

>> No.12588833

>>12585300
every previous theory we've ever had has been proven wrong, it's likely that our current theories will be proven wrong too.

>> No.12588845

>>12584828
>Why is Eugenics considered debunked
Because people don't want it, basically. Yeah, that's not what "debunked" means, but it's why very few people challenge the people saying it's been "debunked".
Note how >>12584842 immediately tried to intimidate you instead of giving reasons why a eugenics program wouldn't work.

>> No.12588849

>>12588845
>ignores everyone else in the thread

>> No.12588856

>>12584842
insane levels of projection

>> No.12589133

Because dysgenics is a good way to keep your slaves down.

>> No.12591391

Speed banks are pretty much voluntary eugenics...

>> No.12591471
File: 165 KB, 800x820, women are stupid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12591471

>> No.12591495

>>12584828
Purely political reasons. We know a lot about heritability of desirable traits. It’s simply politically incorrect to talk about it or intentionally promote it, because feels.

>> No.12591504

>>12591495
>because feels.

no, because they want to sabotage us genetically.

>> No.12591514

>>12585083
You could literally make giant leaps in genetic engineering if you selectively bred high IQ people and put them to work on the field

>> No.12591548

>>12584828
Eugenics hasn't been debunked but it has deemed immoral, next question

>> No.12591571

>>12591495
>We know a lot about heritability of desirable traits

Which means fuck all if you don't have a crystal ball that tells you the necessary adaptions needed thousands of years in the future.

>> No.12591597

>>12591571

we do, it's called extrapolation. being smart is better than being dumb. being strong is better than being weak. the complexity of intelligent life didn't exist on earth a million years ago not because those traits would not have been of any benefit, but because they (and the systems that support them) take a long fucking time to emerge.

>> No.12591598

>>12584842
reddit moment

>> No.12591656
File: 162 KB, 1024x768, Photo-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12591656

>>12591597
>being smart is better than being dumb.
Only if traits that lead to being smart are not tied to autism or schizophrenic. Otherwise you lower your chances to find a mate and procreate. In this instance being "dumb" is technically better.
>being strong is better than being weak.
Yet some of the traits tied to increase smarts are found in features that make people weak like Myopia.

>the complexity of intelligent life didn't exist on earth a million years ago not because those traits would not have been of any benefit, but because they (and the systems that support them) take a long fucking time to emerge.
Not entirely true, it's very feasible that intelligent life did exist millions of years ago but the specific traits and opportunities necessary to maximize its utilization only became realized recently. For instance Dolphins are intelligent, however they do not possess the dexterity that humans have thus barred from writing and building, nor do they exist in environmental conditions conducive to the path of civilization and industrialization like access to fire.

>> No.12591668
File: 6 KB, 250x250, 1610722653354t.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12591668

why do so many people use my name to refer to things i never said and/or which they do not understand?

>> No.12592759

>>12585086
IQ is a useless measurement sans the very low end of the scale where it can indicate developmental disabilities. It's a test made by humans to measure their own intelligence and obviously falls apart at the average and above average ranges. Intelligence is too complicated a thing to limit to just one number.

Most believe eugenics is fine when it comes to diseases and obvious disabilities (down's syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy). The issue is trying to create a "super human". Everyone agrees people who are naturally motivated, strong, and smart can be ideal, but how do you get there?

Intelligence measurements fail on the average end. You can test the physical attributes of the parents, but genetics of parents can be a bit different. You can have "smart" parents create a "dumber" child just cause the fastest sperm also happened to have some of the worst genes.

How is it enforced? Gene therapy is nice in theory, but you're asking society to fund the creation of people who will be much, much better than those currently living. Sour grapes comes to mind even if we have the magic tech to know what genes are good.
Is it a ban on sex if (flawed) test score for intelligence and strength is not above X? Well, good fucking luck enforcing that.

>> No.12593349

>>12584828
Because it's too short term. There's bo guarantee that the selected mutations don't end up with bad congenital things. During evolution those people would just die off.

>> No.12593539

>>12588646
>or think it isn't doing good enough job

>> No.12593564

>>12593539
So? It’s a valid argument.

Why wait for the forces of nature to naturally form a home for you when you can simply build one yourself far faster and probably better than any cave nature could form.

>> No.12593948

>>12591668
Likely because of Galton who was from the Darwin family and the fact that the Darwin's produced quite a few proponents of eugenics and were sometimes themselves used as an example of inherited intelligence

>> No.12594657

>>12585021
Then don't vaxx yourself, you are altering your phenotype bro!!!

>> No.12596518

>>12593349
We're currently in a dysgenic trend and shitty traits are already proliferating due to minimal selective pressure

>> No.12596712

>>12586644 (checked)
Of course we should. Wildlife preservation is a joke.

>> No.12596796

Did God use evolution?
>The term “theistic evolution” refers to a broad variety of ideas. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the term promotes the idea that “natural selection is one of the mechanisms with which God directs the natural world.”

>Theistic evolution can also include the following ideas:

>All living organisms descended from common ancestors in the distant past.

>One kind of life-form can evolve into a completely different kind of life-form, a concept that is sometimes referred to as macroevolution.

>God is somehow ultimately responsible for these processes.

Is evolution compatible with the Bible?
>Theistic evolution implies that the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis is not completely accurate. However, Jesus referred to the Genesis account as historical fact. (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:18-24; Matthew 19:4-6) The Bible says that before coming to earth, Jesus lived in heaven with God and was involved in helping God to bring “all things” into existence. (John 1:3) Therefore, the idea that God used evolution to bring about different life-forms is incompatible with Bible teachings.

What about the ability of plants and animals to adapt?
>The Bible does not explain how much variation can occur within a kind. Neither does it contradict the fact that the different kinds of animals and plants created by God can vary as they breed or adapt to new environments. Although some view such adaptations as a form of evolution, no new kind of life is produced.

>> No.12596807

>>12584828
>Natural Selection is accepted and unquestionable?
Nobody does this, most people think that beauty standards are subjective and there is no sexual market.

>> No.12597207

If we raised the average IQ to 150+ the world would be a better place

>> No.12598327

Is species conservation eugenics?

>> No.12598393

>>12584842
What do you think the corona vaccine is?

>> No.12598402

>>12588245
>Most disfigurements are the result of environmental insults rather than genetics.

Ah, of course, clearly physical disfigurements are the result of trauma.
/sci/ 2021, lmao.

>> No.12598459
File: 697 KB, 821x1194, 1610514462208.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12598459

>>12586767
oh nonono jewbros we got to cocky

if it were about having the most geniuses then they should be following eugenics better themselves.
Having more 180+ IQ scientists and mathematicians doesn't translate directly to competition since the wealth/IQ relation plateaus at the upper end. Being ultra rich and powerful is partly having at least ~130 IQ but mostly sheer luck and networking. The insulated old boys club of big money jews would barely be under more competition to a smarter population.

I thinks it's even more evil than the somewhat reasonable motive of limitting competition.
I think they would rather guarantee their position as kings of future brazilworld than risk having another Newton out there making discoveries that could shift the course of history.

>> No.12598476

>>12584842
Wew lad

>> No.12598504

>>12584828
??? Eugenics isn't debunked at all. In fact it's still in use today. What do you think the Tranny movement is?

>> No.12600499

Jews

>> No.12600864
File: 379 KB, 1052x1137, 1587312865587.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12600864

>>12584842
>Anyone asking question about the history of science is an inbred neonazi incel hick.

You're a loser and you fundamentally misunderstand science. You live in a fantasy world in which your a moral Saint and an intellectual genius, and anyone who disagrees with you is a low IQ, evil, racist, neonazi, incel. You don't understand science, or even basic logic, and you have an egocentric understanding of the world. You posses no theory of mind (and you're probably so scientifically illiterate that you've never even heard the term 'theory of mind'), and you are completely unable to examine and scrutinize your own beliefs, or recognize that other people might have epistemologically legitimate reasons for their beliefs even if they conflict with YOUR worldview (which nobody other than you and your mother care about).

>> No.12600911

>>12591597
Smart people are usually more likely to be fucking insane, have difficulty cooperating because of arrogance, and have difficulty performing mating rituals

>> No.12602188

>>12584842
Always some s oy response like this to a genuine question. You seem afraid, hence the passive aggressiveness

>> No.12602281

>>12584840
This is probably the closest you'll get to a real answer, OP. Did you ever have to take an economics course and learn the difference between positive and normative statements? This is that.

On the other hand, it's still ridiculous, because probably upwards of 50% of academia doesn't have a metaphysical framework that can even *inform* an ethical worldview, much less an ethical worldview that would contest eugenics. People are against it solely because it fell out of fashion when the Third Reich was defeated - basically overnight. Ignore any self-professed academic who pretends otherwise.

>>12584842
Based.

>> No.12602325

>>12584828
Most people pull back as soon as one raises the question of "Who gets to decide who gets to have kids?", because are you REALLY going to trust the government?
There's also still some unsettled science as to what the "ideal" offspring is. We're still finding out that some people have advantageous mutations or are resistant to certain diseases as part of their bloodline. There are people out there who are resistant to HIV, for instance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_resistance_to_HIV
But that begs the question, if we ONLY let these people breed, is there some other disease that's gonna come along that these people are super-suceptible to that wipes them out completely? It starts to bring up questions of monocultures and the potential risk they bring. The Great Famine was brought about because people were only planting one specific type of potato which wasn't resistant to a certain mold.
In the end, the strengths of unregulated genetic diversity outweigh the potential for disaster of a curated monoculture, AND actually enforcing that monoculture would be an absolute nightmare for personal freedoms.
tldr fuck everything and let the strong survive

>> No.12603247

The fact that you ask this question means that you would be one of the first people to get exterminated in a Eugenics based society, for good reason of course.

>> No.12604056

Jews

>> No.12604089

>>12602325
The issue with that is that there is such a minimal amount of selective pressure that even shitty traits are able to be passed with comparable ease in our modern climate

>> No.12604438

>>12584828
It's a plan, so in order for it to happen you need it both to work, and to be desirable. It's "true" in the sense that it works, but people don't want it.

It's also messy and stupid. Imagine if you're a natsoc 150iq chad. You're super pro eugenics. It happens, but the people in power decide to allow everything above 100-110. Now you live in reddit midwitland and you're soon to be stoned for being so racist. And that's just the first example of it fucking you over. Any combination of hereditary characteristics that are ignored or taken into account, and to which extend they are ignored or taken into account, could end up creating more problems than solving. It's also slow and feels bad as Skinner points out on "Science and Human Behavior".

The only true and desirable eugenics is some sort of class system or you yourself sacrificing some comfort to get a tall and smart wife, rather than the sex crazed midget Asian who cosplays as Harley Quinn on her onlyfans that you're in love with.

>> No.12604457

>>12584828
It's because our standard for what is and isn't scientific "truth" is inherently political.

>> No.12604915

>>12585048
Black skin color
Big head(Big brain)
Black hair
Black eyes
(I am not black but These features are currently the most advantageous and aryan)

>> No.12605225

>>12584828
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_eugenics
not debunked,just tainted

>> No.12605244

>>12584828
eugenics =/= race science

>> No.12608037

Bump.

>> No.12608067

>>12584828
tastiest bait i've ever witnessed

>> No.12608770

>>12608067
Evolution didn't stop at the brainstem.

>> No.12609039

>>12585065
>>12585120

Ffs learn punctuation

>> No.12609070

>>12585048
>>12585090
What's the issue?

>> No.12609636

People imagine to be the boot stomping on others, but in reality they will be the ones getting stomped

>> No.12609966
File: 31 KB, 378x378, download (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12609966

>>12584931
>human rights violations

>> No.12609990
File: 32 KB, 600x655, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12609990

>>12585421
>You realize autism is partly genetic right?

>> No.12610210

There will be no eugenics, it's slow and inefficient.
There will be genetic modification on a mass scale. It's fast, can be done in one generation, and even eventually get to the point where we can change the phenotype of fully developed people by modifying their genone in-vivo.

>> No.12610511
File: 849 KB, 758x802, 1611238039578.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12610511

>everyone in this thread is arguing about race and genocide
>no one is actually talking about single allele defects, gene defects in general, proper nutrition during pregnancy, etc
this is why eugenics is a taboo subject

>> No.12610519

>Eugenics =unnatural=my feelings say your genes bad! i cut your pipes from genitals!!!

>nat.select=natural, only best genes reproduce

>> No.12610964
File: 101 KB, 681x539, 1605867110015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12610964

>>12610519
>only best genes reproduce

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