/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2846654]

Given /sci/ if full of rationalists who understand evolution, would you be willing to sacrifice a girl who's perfect for you for a girl with better biological traits (intelligence, physical fitness, lack of disease in family history, etc) in order to breed an intellectual masterrace? I almost feel a responsibility for it.

Fags who come on here to get help on their algebra homework need not apply.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2846663]

I wouldn't breed.

[Anonymous No.2846670]

No, as those who understand evolution are typically not eugenicists.

[Anonymous No.2846673]

Mating with someone who has better biological traits does not ensure that your kids will also have those traits.

Ugly, stupid people can give birth to intelligent, sexy people

[Anonymous No.2846671]

I care more about my own happiness than breeding some "master race." So no.

[Anonymous No.2846675]

Biological reproduction is for chimps. If I want to create a progeny I'll build them from the ground up.

Regarding a bitch to bang, I bang whichever ones I think are hottest.

[Anonymous No.2846676]

>>2846673

and vice versa*

[Anonymous No.2846684]

I would.

Most successful people marry for money and connections rather than love.

Look at the English gentleman. That is the result of hundreds of years of good breeding.

[Anonymous No.2846691]

that style looked familiar:
http://animeafterglow.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/its-the-arts/

the more you know :D

[Anonymous No.2846695]

>>2846670
This is positive eugenics though. I'm not preventing those I see as less fit from reproducing, nor am I even seeking to out-compete them. It's more akin to selective breeding

>>2846673
Trollolol, 1/10 I almost started to write a response.

>>2846671
>>2846663
You don't feel a moral, if not biological, responsibility to pass on your genes, given that you are intelligent? In fact the purpose of life, striped of metaphysical bullshit, is nothing but to reproduce.

If intelligent people fail to do this sufficiently it'll be a detriment to the human race.

[Anonymous No.2846696]

>>2846684

>implying it isn't social/environmental

[Anonymous No.2846701]

That's a loaded question as there is no one single genetic factor which influences intelligence..

There are a multitude of cultural factors which influence intelligence as well as simply being born into a middle class family instantly gains people 10-20 points on the I.Q. scale.

Realistically working class children who have to work during highschool haven't a chance in the world against a person who has time to study and do homework..

Realistically a genius doesn't have a chance in the world against someone with proficient networking skills who can gain himself points on tests simply by being the most liked person in the class..

Realistically crafty people can get through school just by cheating, if they are crafty and sneaky enough..

Which is why I'm always suspicious of someone with a perfect or nearly perfect 4.0 GPA..Someone with a 3.5 or 3.0 is way more useful than someone who simply took easy classes or cheated his way through college.

[Anonymous No.2846705]

>>2846695
>In fact the purpose of life, striped of metaphysical bullshit, is nothing but to reproduce.

Life has a purpose? Prove it. I see that life reproduces, but that does not in any way imply that it is a purpose.

[Anonymous No.2846707]

>>2846691
>anime inserted into Klimt

This is the kind of people that we need to breed out.

[Anonymous No.2846711]

>>2846695
There is no purpose to life. Purpose implies design. Life reproduces because life that doesn't reproduce didn't survive this long. That does not mean it has a purpose, any more than you would say that hydrogen's purpose was to fuse into heavier elements because that's what they do in suns.

In a purposeless existence, I must decide purpose for my life. There is no true purpose but that which I make for myself.

[Anonymous No.2846714]

I like your picture though, the women is sexy... I just know a lot of working class people who are very intelligent but didn't have the opportunity to go to college or what not..

[Anonymous No.2846717]

>>2846701
No doubt there's environmental factors, but even that would be vastly improved by having two intelligent parents, as opposed to two illiterate ones. There's both a biological and environmental incentive to do so. On top of it, you can converse with your better half better if you can do so at the same level (I hate talking to stupid girls, even if they are cute).

>>2846705
It's self perpetuation, hardwired into all life's codes. Life is in fact defined by reproduction, from virus to blue whales.

>implying viruses aren't life

[Anonymous No.2846723]

>>2846717
>>2846717

You have asserted that life reproduces. Now prove that it is our purpose.

[Anonymous No.2846725]

>>2846714
It's obviously more advantageous to cross genes with an intelligent woman of less education than a less intelligent one with better education.

There's plenty of fucking idiots in colleges, females included.

[Anonymous No.2846735]

>would you sacrifice a girl that is perfect for a girl that is even better?
lolwut?

[Anonymous No.2846738]

>>2846723
Evolution is largely driven by natural selection (and availability of resource, if a new study is to be believed), which is determined by fitness, defined as the number of offsprings an individual has that reaches breeding age.

Life is akin to self-assemblying machines that improves its own design over time. You couldn't argue that those machines' purpose is self-assembly.

[Anonymous No.2846739]

>>2846717
All mammals poop. Does that mean it's their purpose to poop?

Being designed to do something does not mean that it is one's purpose to do that thing in an abstract philosophical sense. It's true that my body is designed to be able to reproduce. But is it my duty, as a living organism? Of course not, because something like "duty" or "purpose" is totally arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.2846740]

No, that's retarded.

Loving relationship -> children raised in supportive environment > Shitty relationship -> children raised as commodities

[Anonymous No.2846741]

Who cares about evolution ? It's an accident, not a duty.

[Anonymous No.2846749]

>>2846738
There's no "purpose." Life just happens. In fact, it's false to argue that all life is designed to reproduce, because that's false. Some organisms are born sterile. We just don't tend to see a lot of organisms like that, because they tend to die off.

[Anonymous No.2846756]

>>2846695


>This is positive eugenics though. I'm not preventing those I see as less fit from reproducing, nor am I even seeking to out-compete them. It's more akin to selective breeding.


That doesn't make it more valid. While the selective breeding analogy is apt, that doesn't make it good for humanity. Promoting genetic diversity is really what would be favorable evolutionarily. If you selectively breed a population for blue eyes and blond hair, you will end up with a population with a lot of congenital diseases. Similarly, if you try to breed a population selectively for intelligence the same thing is likely to happen. After a while you're going to end up breeding within less and less diverse groups, which is bad for the species.

This is particularly true in your original example. There is a good chance two people with very little family history of disease, who mate exclusively for that quality, could have a very sickly child. We're hard-wired to be attracted to those with complementary immunities. Pheromones contain some information about your immunities, and the fewer immunities people have in common, the more attractive they find one-another (there are, of course, a lot of other factors at play in human reproduction, this is just an important factor).

Also, as others have said, stupid people have smart children and vice-versa. Until we understand the genetic basis for intelligence better you couldn't be sure you're actually acting in the best interest of your progeny.

[Anonymous No.2846766]

>>2846739
Can the purpose of life be different from the conscious purpose of an organism ?


I would agree with anon, reproduction is the finality of life. Whether one cares for it or not is unrelated, though.

[Anonymous No.2846777]

Smart people on average have smart children.

Example: niggers

[Implying No.2846803]

>>2846654
>perfect girl has imperfect qualities

[Anonymous No.2846804]

>>2846654
>implying the girl perfect for me wouldn't be intelligent
and physically fit

[Anonymous No.2846827]

If a woman was perfect for me, I wouldn't be able to choose between the options because there would not be any "better" woman for me in any sense.

[Anonymous No.2846828]

>>2846777

It would be more accurate to say that smart people, on average, have smarter children than the mean. Two geniuses are not a lot more likely to have a child that is a genius, but it is likely that their child will be above average. Two people of above-average, but non-genius intelligence who have more above-average-intelligence family members are considerably more likely to have an above-average child than two geniuses who don't have the same family backgrounds.

'Course, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with fitness as evolutionary biologists use the word. Also, fun fact, children of parents from less similar genetic backgrounds tend to be smarter than those whose parents had more similar genetic backgrounds. Nature favors diversity.

[Anonymous No.2846841]

People in this thread who say they would only breed for ubermensch children have either never experienced love or has a fucked up view on relationships.

Personal happiness and life fulfillment is the natural, instinctual way to go.

[Anonymous No.2846861]

>>2846841
This is what I meant by "perfect for you."

Sacrificing personal happiness from a perfect romantic match for one that will produce a more likely, worthy carrier of your genes.

[Anonymous No.2846894]

>>2846756
Mating for diversity would be preferable in the sense of increasing genetic mix. However there's still no ethical violation comparable to eugenics, a word loaded with Nazi history and racism, or at all. All animals are selective in their mating, and there's no reason why intelligence can't be a factor considered, over personal happiness or attractiveness, although that latter doesn't hurt.

[Anonymous No.2846902]

>>2846861

the sensation of 'attraction' is caused by traits that during our evolutionary past were beneficial. men are naturally attracted to signs of fertility including physical fitness and signs of good health (meaning no disease).

you are simply not going to have a girl that is 'perfect for you romantically' without this attraction. you could make the argument that someone who is intelligent would be a more worthy carrier of genes as they would be more likely to succeed in a modern society, but that is not the case as intelligence and education in females is (weakly and strongly, respectively) inversely correlated with number of offspring.

if you are wanting to pick the best person for reproduction as a male currently, you are going to pick someone with as high physical attractiveness as possible that would also be an effective caregiver to any children (read: have traditional feminine skills) with an eye towards getting someone who is least likely to be unfaithful and stick you with someone else's child.

the premise of the OP is inherently false.

[Anonymous No.2846954]

>>2846902
It's not for the seeking of fitness, which was used only as a natural argument to justify life's purpose as procreation and to draw parallel away from eugenics.

It may be unconventional as mating strategy goes but still makes plenty of sense is one views intelligence as something worth preserving genetically.

[Anonymous No.2846964]

Would this somehow improve MY life? No?

Then why the fuck would I do that? The entire human race can die out once I'm gone, for all I care. I won't lift a finger to "improve" it.

[Anonymous No.2846977]

>perfect
>another girl who's better
learn english motherfucker

[Anonymous No.2846983]

>>2846982
>implying objective perfection exists

[Anonymous No.2846982]

>>2846977
>implying perfect for you = perfect objectively

[Anonymous No.2846985]

Logically and with no emotion involved in my answer, then yes. I would use her as an egg donor and when she has given birth, I would leave her, taking my offspring and raising them with the girl perfect for me. Intellectual masterrace would not only benefit my family but in the long term, aid in the advancement of our species.

[Anonymous No.2846987]

>>2846983
Yes, it does, given the parameters outlined by OP's post.

[Synonymous !0l3ParseCs No.2846996]

>me
>breed
Nope. Aside from my faggotry, I have far too many genetic problems (parkinsons carrier prone to cataracts and severe acne from 11-21, constantly)
If I were to breed then the answer would still be no, due to the facts 1) I'm human, unfortunately, and 2) I think that the difference it would make is so negligible it doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.2847002]

>>2846894

I didn't mean to suggest it was an ethical objection, as it doesn't deny rights to anyone, but it still is accurately described as eugenics. Perhaps the example of blond-haired, blue-eyed population was a bad choice.

Anyway, what you're referring to in saying most species select partners for desirable traits is what is called sexual selection, not selective breeding. Selective breeding is breeding dogs to be small so as to annoy sane people.and fit in crazy women's purses. Seletive breeding implies that there is one rhinoceros determining which rhinos mate with whom and which ones don't at all. It's not to say that you're wrong on that point, just clarifying it because the term selective breeding has some unfortunate implications.

You're absolutely correct in that it's fine to value intelligence in a potential mate, but what I was saying is that that isn't the most important factor in generating successful offspring, because if you only breed with high-intelligence populations, the mean intelligence of that population will fall as genetic diversity decreases, and the rate of congenital diseases will increase. This would inevitably be a problem if a small portion of the population (say, only those with an IQ of 140+) were to try to breed endogamously specifically for that purpose. It's fine if someone just wants to try to find a smart person to have kids with, they just shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that that will guarantee more successful progeny.

[Anonymous No.2847009]

>>2847002


>sexual selection, not selective breeding
fullretard.jpg

[Anonymous No.2847016]

You're better off breeding with someone you will stand long enough to rear well adjusted, intelligent children with than someone with whom theres some off chance that you'd breed a genius because of genetic circumstances. The OP... is a faggot.

[Anonymous No.2847017]

>>2846954

i mean, if your goal is to have economically successful children, yeah prioritizing intelligence makes sense.

[a strong ai No.2847032]

I had a strange attraction to a girl who was below average intelligence... something about cleaning up god's mess or protecting someone who went through the same trials as me but couldn't protect themselves.

But I was seriously afraid of what our kids would be like and even went so far to ask her if she would allow me to use someone else's egg for one child.

Anyways it didn't work out so it is debatable if she was perfect for me. In terms of intelligence, this question may not make sense seeing as there are studies claiming that it is not possible to have a meaningful relationship with someone more than 10 IQ points away from you. There are just too many things that are obvious to you that are not to them, and you end up arguing over silly stuff.

[Anonymous No.2847041]

>>2847009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection#Intrasexual_and_intersexual_selection

God dammit /sci/, I expect more from you.

Sexual selection is, broadly speaking, selection within a species for certain traits (generally intersexual selection which I was referring to is more about chances of reproductive success, a la the sexy son hypothesis, but it still fits). Selective breeding is done TO a population externally, not BY a population internally.

[Anonymous No.2847051]

>>2847032
>and even went so far to ask her if she would allow me to use someone else's egg for one child.
>Anyways it didn't work out

I can't say I'm surprised.

[Anonymous No.2847078]

>>2847041

Actually I guess I shouldn't expect better from /sci/. I just need to get off 4chan for a while.

[a strong ai No.2847083]

>>2847051
I get what you are saying but you would have to understand the nature of the relationship and intelligence in general to put this in perspective.

I had to help her with just about every aspect of her life. She understood that intelligence was not the meaning of life and that she was a valuable human being, but also that she needed help with many things. No matter how hard she tried she could not do them on her own.

From that perspective for her it was an objective choice of creating someone with the same difficulties as her or someone with an easier time with life. But we had also planned to make one child together to account for humanity's lack of understanding of how intelligence works exactly.