[ 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: 38 KB, 268x265, 1282321090234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2762839 No.2762839 [Reply] [Original]

I think it's reasonable to say that natural selection inefficient and it only works in the long run. If we practiced eugenics we'd have super humans running around in only a few short generations. There are plenty of ways to sidestep the moral issues, so don't complain about that.

Why haven't we started a eugenics program?

>> No.2762868

>>2762864

men* and women

>> No.2762864

Because it's not moral to our society.

The idea sounds good on paper but when it comes to real life no one will actually do it unless there is some incentive.

I think in the future we will have a way to sterilize me and women so they can have as much sex as they want (incentive) and people fit for breeding will not be sterilized.

That's the only way I can see it working.

>> No.2762878

>>2762864

Why not just take 10,000 highly intelligent individuals without any serious genetic illnesses and cram them together in a community closed off from the rest of society?

>> No.2762890

Everyone was all for eugenics before the nazi's ruined it for everyone

>> No.2762896

>>2762878
because you would need Joos for a "highly intelligent" population and they have major genetic risks like Tay-Sachs.

>> No.2762902

>>2762890
>>2762896
>mfw Hitler actually preserved a population of 50 Jewish doctors in a guarded hospital in Munich because he secretly knew their genes needed to be preserved.

>> No.2762905

>>2762878

10,000 highly intelligent individuals would most likely not want to be together closed off from society. People are all Dependant of other people to an extent.

You'd probably have people who want to be with their families, people who are mildly autistic... I can't think of other factors

A lot of people want to have kids, I think that's the big reason no one will sterilize themselves.

>> No.2762916

>>2762896

No you wouldn't.

>> No.2762982

We haven't started an eugenics program, because the people who would conduct the program, i.e. the scientific community of the world, knows that genetics is only (about) half the equation in "producing" optimum human beings.

Sure, superior genetics would produce humans with higher intelligence and athleticism. But there are numerous, hard-to-control environmental factors that can undermine these individuals.

For example, subpar parenting can severely hinder these humans from reaching their highest potential.

Certain desirable personality traits like motivation, positive worldview, healthy adaptive behaviors to rejection and failure, etc. are not entirely understood yet, therefore difficult to control neither through genetics nor environmental manipulation.

Many of the humanity's history's greats were people with shining talents and glaring faults that has pushed and pulled them to achieve great things. Perhaps you need a certain amount of big faults to make a great human, and these are factors we cannot yet control (largely because we have not identified them well enough yet).

>> No.2763038

Fucking create Master Chief and Goku already!

>> No.2763047

>>2762839
Because eugenics only "works" in the short run, and then you have an over-specialized race that's much more defenseless against environmental change.

>> No.2763112

>>2763047
So, disregarding cosmetic changes that could in fact be harmful despite being physically appealing, you believe that a race of physically strong and more intelligent humans free of heritable disease would be genetically inferior to the current human race simply because it would lack the diversity of low-intelligence and physical-unfitness genes?

>> No.2763123

intelligence is not genetic

>> No.2763147

>>2763123
someone is in denial about the future of his children

>> No.2763230

Pfft. Are you fucking kidding me?

Most governments cant even handle the trains properly. Look at the american government, so divorced from reality that one party will automatically go against the other on anything for no other reason than they think they should.

Eugenics - if applied sensibly and with moral considerations - could remove defective genes and genetic diseases and generally improve the human race immensly within a few generations (no super-humans im sorry, but definitely healthier humans).

That would be a sensible, clever thing to do. Considering the population of the planet earth is about 99% ultra-religious, low IQ, stupid drunken fuckheads with absolutely no grasp of science beyond herping every time fox news derps at them, how the fuck would they ever manage to do something smart?

>> No.2763251

>>2763047
Is environmental change even a significant factor anymore?

Matter of fact, we've been spending most of our time as humans adapting our environment to us, not the other way around.

>> No.2763256

Technology >>>>>>>> Biology

Eugenics would be a waste of time even if you could produce results at this point in time.

>> No.2763271

>>2763230
A sort of pact between the genetically 'superior' would work just as well. We could at least assume anyone who would prefer a eugenic breeding program is intelligent enough to participate in it.

It just matters if the 'superior' are capable of self-governing to create a eugenics program, but seeing as we want the smart ones, self-government shouldn't be hard to achieve.

>> No.2763285 [DELETED] 

Additionally, human breeding is absurdly unreliable. You inseminate a cow, BAM.. cow is pregnant. Inseminate a human woman twice a day for 30 days... maybe a 20% chance of pregnancy. If you're lucky. Then she probably fucking miscarries.

At which point you're in the same position as you were with the cow: There's only a small chance the kid picks up the traits you want. At which point you can't just have him turned into sausage... you've got to raise the defective bastard to adulthood or his parents get upset.

>> No.2763293
File: 89 KB, 720x427, baby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2763293

Additionally, human breeding is absurdly unreliable. You inseminate a cow, BAM.. cow is pregnant. Inseminate a human woman twice a day for 30 days... maybe a 20% chance of pregnancy. If you're lucky. Then she probably fucking miscarries.

At which point you're in the same position as you were with the cow: There's only a small chance the kid picks up the traits you want. If not, you can't just have the baby turned into sausage... you've got to raise the defective thing to adulthood or the parents get upset.

>> No.2763346

>>2763293

It's not that human pregnancy is an unreliable process, it just works differently for humans.

For humans, it follows the law of inverse worth. Lower your worth, higher your ease of child bearing. Higher your worth, lower your ease of child bearing.

Ever heard of a wealthy, successful couple in the 30's having difficulty with having a child, or just plain unable to have one? Sure, you have.

How about a 16 year old trailer park white trash slut or project hoodrat having no luck with getting pregnant despite repeated effort? Yeah, me neither. It's a ridiculous question, because everyone knows these abused idiots have 3 kids by the time they are 22.

>> No.2763358

>>2763346
I'll ignore the troll and all issues of morality and just reassert what I said before: The problem is one of logistics. Humans are biologically unsuitable for breeding programs.

>> No.2763382

>>2763358

Uptight and lacks a sense of humor.

>> No.2763384

>>2763358
Well then we'll just breed ourselves to be biologically suitable for breeding programs.

Shitty circular logic aside, might actually be possible (but it would certainly take longer than a couple generations)

>> No.2763469

>>2763384

That's what ranchers do with livestock. They've been bred for better breeding.

Don't believe grossly exaggerated pseudo-scientific statements. If just 50% of women in the world had only a 20% to be pregnant with high likelihood of miscarriage, it would be impossible to have overpopulation problems. But we do.

Some people mistake aggression with a solid logical stance. This was one of those cases.

We can artificially inseminate woman. We can predetermine the gender of a child with 90% probability. We can do quite a bit.

>> No.2763575

>>2763469
http://www.fertilityplus.org/faq/iui.html

The odds of successful intra-uterine insemination, the most effective human fertility treatment outside a testtube is between 6 and 26 percent. The odds of success just by having regular sex is LOWER.

The reason so many humans get pregnant so often is because they are all having sex ALL THE FUCKING TIME.