What does /sci/ think of population control (eugenics), and the idea of a "master race"?

File: 103 KB, 665x598, 1302706300775.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:38:45 2011 No.2921349 [Reply] [Original]

What does /sci/ think of population control (eugenics), and the idea of a "master race"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:40:45 2011 No.2921358 File: 9 KB, 243x207, argentinian LOL IDK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:41:45 2011 No.2921365 >>2921349 Eugenics at this point is too dangerous. We'd be removing stable alleles from the population and generally, that's a bad thing since lack of diversity can really fuck over a population.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:42:45 2011 No.2921377 no need for popluation control, although we really do need to scrap our current society and reorganize things. Its getting out of hand.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:43:03 2011 No.2921381 >>2921377 getting out of hand relative to what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:43:45 2011 No.2921382 Absolutely retarded. No such thing as a master race, they're just a bunch of rednecks who want to make themselves feel important. And believe it or not, but a lot of the time in order to develop a great gene you first need to develop a negative one.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:43:45 2011 No.2921386

>>2921358
Well, fucking think about it. Here are my opinions:
It should be pushed. The population will soon grow to 9 billion, and without something like China's one-child policy, the world won't be able to sustain everyone (even more than now). So we might as well try and make everyone smarter, stronger, etc.

But we can't do this without more research and quantifying it so until we can, abortions for low-class people should be incentivized, free, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:44:45 2011 No.2921389 File: 175 KB, 385x440, phelpswestchurch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It sounds like a good idea but then racism

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:45:45 2011 No.2921398 man is the master race

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:46:45 2011 No.2921399 >>2921386 >the world won't be able to sustain everyone Proof please. Or are you just another fear mongering hippy?

>>	StormTroll !GnYU8vo7lA Wed Apr 20 21:46:45 2011 No.2921401 Abortion is good for voluntary eugenics. We need to get more Mexicans to have abortions though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:47:45 2011 No.2921405 >>2921398 Until we find an alien race that surpasses us in every way. Considering how huge the universe is it's pretty much guaranteed that some superior life form exists out there

>>	Leonidas Wed Apr 20 21:49:45 2011 No.2921411 >>2921401 Shit that other board is dead, isn't it? It was getting interesting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:49:45 2011 No.2921412 >>2921381 We are not productive. There are so many people out there that just sit around and expect people (government) to do things for them. Based on population and technology there is so much potential but everything is so hung up on economics now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:50:45 2011 No.2921416 >>2921399 Wow. Okay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:51:03 2011 No.2921425 File: 65 KB, 251x250, 1282542132726.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2921416 It's a wikipedia article. What's your point?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:51:45 2011 No.2921419 >>2921386 ? Overpopulation will not be an issue.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:51:45 2011 No.2921422 File: 5 KB, 85x126, 1280607648001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] They are bad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:52:45 2011 No.2921429 >>2921416 China is going to collapse because of its shitty policy. Can't sustain hordes of old people with too few kids.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:52:45 2011 No.2921432 >>2921416 There is as much evidence on that page to suggest you're just a scared little hippy as there is to say that the world will be overpopulated in the next few years.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:53:45 2011 No.2921433 >>2921405 If we are not the master race we should become the master race. We can develop the technology.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:53:45 2011 No.2921436

>>2921425
>Fresh water supplies, on which agriculture depends, are running low worldwide.[108][109] This water crisis is only expected to worsen as the population increases. [110]
>Some scientists argue that there is enough food to support the world population,[122][123] but critics dispute this, particularly if sustainability is taken into account.[124]
>David Pimentel,[93] Professor Emeritus at Cornell University, has stated that "With the imbalance growing between population numbers and vital life sustaining resources, humans must actively conserve cropland, freshwater, energy, and biological resources. There is a need to develop renewable energy resources. Humans everywhere must understand that rapid population growth damages the Earth's resources and diminishes human well-being."[94][95]

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:53:45 2011 No.2921437 >>2921425 Wikipedia is mostly legit now. But still overpopulation wont be a problem.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:53:45 2011 No.2921439

The only form of eugenics we need as a country or a world is telling people the risks of passing on bad genes like diseases or huge genetic disorder. No enforcing.

Now if we were to train a secret race of super soldiers, then maybe enforcement would be ok.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:53:45 2011 No.2921440 >>2921429 Gonna happen to the US, Europe, and Japan too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:54:45 2011 No.2921446 We need genetic engineering, not eugenetics. Eugenetics like sterilization/ birth licenses are functionally retarded. Non-coercion all the way.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:54:45 2011 No.2921449 >>2921432 What the fuck is with you and hippies? I'm not a fucking hippy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:54:45 2011 No.2921450 >Universe is so large that our galaxy is but a grain of sand in an endless desert. >He thinks there are limited resources and limited space. You're wrong and should feel bad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:55:45 2011 No.2921455 >>2921429 >Implying china's population consists mostly of old people and not a shit ton of young people

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:56:45 2011 No.2921459 Malthusianism and overpopulation in general is one of the few scientific theories that has been disproved countless times yet still is adhered to by many. It's like the Rapture. If it doesn't happen, just move the date back.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:56:45 2011 No.2921460 >>2921455 Hint: Young people have 1 kid, then age.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:56:45 2011 No.2921462 >>2921436 The world is 70% covered in water. Necessity is the mother of invention; if we ever run out of food we'll invent a way to create more. Our planet isn't the only one. Technology > nature. Fuck you

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:57:45 2011 No.2921464 >>2921429 China is communist, they can sustain it comfortably.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:58:45 2011 No.2921471 >>2921436 >Running out of water on earth 70% water >running out of food That would only increase much needed demand for farmers and agriculture. No problem here. >Running out of energy nope. always new options for energy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:58:45 2011 No.2921474 >>2921386 The world population will stabilize at around 9-10 billion and begin to decline. One-child policies are not necessary, and will, in fact, make things worse.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:58:45 2011 No.2921476 >>2921462 0.6% of that water is actually drinkable.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 21:59:45 2011 No.2921479

>>2921446

>implying coercion = eugenics

eugenics are in effect right now

dumb people have more kids, and smarter people have few/none.

all you'd have to do is cut welfare, and reward middle class citizens for having kids.

or, high IQ citizens rather than middle class, or some sort of combo of the two.

eugenics doesn't have to mean "lol get sterilized" like in china.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:00:45 2011 No.2921485 >>2921479 Natural selection =/= eugenics

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:01:45 2011 No.2921489 >>2921476 I can make an endless supply seawater drinkable for myself using tools that could be acquired for less than $1. No problems there. Or are you some kind of idiot who thinks that it's impossible to distil water?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:02:45 2011 No.2921491 >>2921462 >Implying that new inventions come immediately and at no short term cost. >implying that new inventions have no unexpected consequences and work perfectly

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:02:45 2011 No.2921493 >>2921485 >social policies >natural selection lol back to 8th grade plz

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:02:45 2011 No.2921497 >>2921493 Its true, policy affects society which is our environment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:03:03 2011 No.2921498 >>2921491 >implying that practical inventions don't exist Talk about argument from ignorance

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:03:45 2011 No.2921499 >>2921476 You know what you need to desalinate seawater? A boiler. Or a filter and a pump, if you feel like using cooler tech.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:03:45 2011 No.2921501 >>2921479 If you cut welfare, there will be more crime.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:04:45 2011 No.2921504 >>2921489 sure, but you'd need to increase the production of distillation machines we're not gonna seriously go the african route on this

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:04:45 2011 No.2921505 >>2921489 >>2921499 WOW GUESS WHAT??? IT TAKES FUCKING ENERGY TO DISTILL WATER FAGGOT

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:04:45 2011 No.2921507

>>2921479
IQ scores are meaningless faggotry.
Stupid people have always had more kids than smart people due to the fact that, surprise, there's always been more stupid people than smart people.
And yet regardless of this fact humanity keeps progressing.
Funny that

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:05:03 2011 No.2921510 >implying solar power wont be an easy energy solution in 5 years

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:05:45 2011 No.2921511 >>2921501 you can't have kids in prison

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:05:45 2011 No.2921514 >>2921505 I can use a lens to heat the water. Requires nothing but sunlight. U MAD, shit for brains?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:05:45 2011 No.2921512 >>2921498 I never implied that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:06:45 2011 No.2921517 File: 31 KB, 126x248, 1273867937705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2921511 CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:06:45 2011 No.2921518 >>2921514 Yeah, go do that for 3 billion people and come back to me and see how that goes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:06:45 2011 No.2921520 >>2921497 >implying civilization is natural when people drive something, we usually call it "artificial", not "natural" hence that'd actually be "artificial selection".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:06:45 2011 No.2921521 >>2921505 Too bad there's no way to get more energy, huh? Especially near the coast, where it is eternally dark and tides do not exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:07:45 2011 No.2921526 >>2921505 All I need is 2 containers, the sun and saran wrap. Why would overpopulation mean no energy?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:07:45 2011 No.2921527 >>2921518 If only the forests were full of flammable stuff that grows back in fifty years

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:07:45 2011 No.2921528 >>2921518 I can't. But 3 billion people can easily do it for 3 billion people. And one or several corporations can do it for 3 billion people with even MORE ease.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:08:45 2011 No.2921531

>>2921520

No, I think articial selection implies intention.

I artificially selected a strong horse, by breeding the houses I thought were superior.

Thats not how policy works. The government didnt create welfare to artificially select a superior human being.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:08:45 2011 No.2921534 >>2921526 Have you ever done this before?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:09:45 2011 No.2921537 >>2921514 >>2921499 >>2921489 typical science majors who think proof of concept = irl solution guess what, cavemen knew how to farm.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:10:45 2011 No.2921541 >>2921537 I agree. Biggest problem with scientists is that they end up a bunch of pasty weak close minded fools. Concept =/= solution

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:11:45 2011 No.2921543 >>2921541 concept becomes a solution once you deploy it you fucktard

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:12:45 2011 No.2921545 >>2921537 Actually, it's more like irl solution = irl solution, since heat-driven desalination is done already.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:12:45 2011 No.2921546 >>2921534 LOL yes. Science experiment in forth grade I think. Placed small cup of salt water in a larger container. Covered it all with saran wrap and left out in the sun.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:12:45 2011 No.2921548 >>2921537 >>2921541 Pick up a survival manual next time you're at the library. Soldiers use these sorts of techniques all the time. Are you stupider than a soldier?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:13:45 2011 No.2921551 >>2921543 You're the fucktard. If it's so easy to make drinkable water, why the fuck are there still places with people dying of dehydration because of no drinkable water?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:14:45 2011 No.2921558 >>2921551 because they don't have a solution

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:14:45 2011 No.2921559 >>2921543 perhaps, but it doesnt mean a concept and a solution are equivalent. you are obviously a heterosexual with no real world engineering experience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:14:45 2011 No.2921561 File: 31 KB, 500x375, nuclear-power-plant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2921541 problem: need energy concept: nuclear energy solution: nuclear energy when does Concept =/= solution?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:14:45 2011 No.2921562 >>2921548 I dont get it, whats the connection between survival techniques and what we said?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:15:45 2011 No.2921565 Jew master race here.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:15:45 2011 No.2921566

>>2921551
Because they live in the middle of wastelands, and the only water available to them requires digging 20 feet into the ground.
In other cases they drink contaminated water simply due to ignorance.
Just because we understand concepts such as hygiene doesn't mean everybody in the world does

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:15:45 2011 No.2921567 >>2921551 The premise here is that you start with non-drinkable water.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:16:45 2011 No.2921572

>>2921551
Just because it's easy doesn't mean it can be done everywhere, by everyone, with no support. Even though it's a simple process, it does require materials and knowledge that not everyone has. This is putting aside the fact that desalination does not help you if there is no fucking water in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:16:45 2011 No.2921577 >>2921562 Survival manuals always describe one or several ways in which you can distil water using nothing but the kinds of things you'd find in a forest or on a desert island

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:16:45 2011 No.2921578 >>2921551 Africa? No access to water in the desert. And no one cares enough to help them.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:16:45 2011 No.2921579

>>2921561

The concept is using nuclear energy

The solution includes the feasability of gather the materials, and building such a thing, and then mastering the most efficient way to do things.

I cant list the immense number of problems you will run into when implementing a solution, because the point is you dont really know what you are doing until you do it. And once you do it will you run into problems that make what you were trying to do to begin with a hundred folder harder.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:16:45 2011 No.2921580 >>2921548 lol yes let's all use plastic bags and buckets to get water for large scale farm operations while we're at it, why don't we pay manual labor to crank our electricity for us, and use a first grade electromagnetics kit? /sci/chopaths

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:17:45 2011 No.2921584 >>2921577 So what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:18:45 2011 No.2921587 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:18:45 2011 No.2921588 >>2921578 >africa >desert thank you, I loled pretty fucking hard :D

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:18:45 2011 No.2921589 >>2921580 Don't be silly. I'm mealy demonstrating that sea water can be turned into drinkable water without using anything fancy or expensive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:19:45 2011 No.2921592 >>2921579 But in the end it is successful and the concept equals the solution. I know this because otherwise I would not have electricity to type this response.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:20:45 2011 No.2921598 >>2921580 A desalination system meant to feed a large-scale operation should itself be large-scale. There is no reason to set up thousands of plastic sheets and pots when a single solar boiler could do the same job for less resources.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:20:45 2011 No.2921602 File: 472 KB, 772x324, Untitled picture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2921588 hmmm...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:21:45 2011 No.2921605 >>2921592 Way to go. Can you imagine the millions of other failed solutions that started out as concepts?

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:23:45 2011 No.2921618

>>2921592

concept: food production

solution: food production

problem that /sci/tards can't plan ahead for: are there enough resources available to increase food production? are there enough people willing to work in the food production industry? are there enough people creating the machinery needed for food production?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:23:45 2011 No.2921620 >>2921605 can you explain how it is a failed solution by telling me how I have electricity from nuclear power, which solved my problem of not having electricity?

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:23:45 2011 No.2921622

>>2921592

If the solution is successful great. But the concept doesnt equal the solution because the concept was just some half baked idea that could be anything, and the solution is actually the difficult and grueling process of turning that into a reality.

Going to mars and taking natural resources is a great concept. it will solve all our problems! Is it a good solution? No.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:24:45 2011 No.2921627 >>2921618 well put comrade. Most of our food production solutions arent sustainable and come at a cost to the envrionemt and human health.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:24:45 2011 No.2921628 File: 13 KB, 401x241, 015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2921349 >mfw people actually say there is no inherently superior race

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:25:45 2011 No.2921629 >>2921602 >thinks significant amounts of people live in the sahara loled even harder

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:26:45 2011 No.2921632 >>2921622 If it solves our problems, explain how is it not good? Define a good solution? A good solution is a solution that sucsessfully solves the problem. It may not be the BEST solution, but it is still a good solution.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:27:45 2011 No.2921639

Eugenics should be implemented and only allow intelligent and heathly people breed with each other. To the point where a person with a IQ of 160 is considered a retard, and where there are hardly any people born with any physical defects that lowers there performance in life. If selective human breeding does not work then we need to develop genetic engineering to create a extremely intelligent and physicaly healthy "super" human race. Then maybe society will start improving.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:27:45 2011 No.2921643 >>2921627 thank you, brofist. I have nothing against pure science majors, just the 15 year olds who think "derp so easy to make electricity I can do with a magnet and wire lol how is this even a poblem"

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:27:45 2011 No.2921644 >>2921629 Did not claim that. The origonal post asked why some people have no water and left out a location. I asked him for a location and suggested one that has little water. Problem?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:28:45 2011 No.2921649 >>2921632 You're retarded. What if I owe someone money, and I decide to sell my car? Sure it solves my problem, but now I can't drive to work to make money anymore.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:29:45 2011 No.2921652

>>2921632

If it solves our problems then it is good. But a good concept = /= a good solution. Or a good concept =/= best solution

And its also hard to determine what concept will in actually be the best solution. And most concepts will probably have unexpected costs which might make them bad solutions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:29:45 2011 No.2921653 >>2921639 You can't breed out greed, friend. We could be a race of giant planet eating monsters who hold all the power in the universe, but when one person decides he wants what someone else has it's over.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:29:45 2011 No.2921654 >>2921639 not sure if troll, but >there first to go, my friend

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:32:45 2011 No.2921666 >>2921649 You had no money and needed to pay some one, so you solved it by selling your car. You now have a problem and need transportation.Take a bus. 2 problems solved by 2 good solutions!

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:32:45 2011 No.2921669

You can breed out "greed" most of a human's personality comes from their bains development, and the brain is developed by how the DNA is coded. You start artificial selection you can eventually remove the genetic code which creates "greed" in humans and start choosing "good" qualitys for them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:33:45 2011 No.2921671 Neat fantasy, but not how the universe works.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:33:45 2011 No.2921675 >>2921644 see >>2921578 >africa, bcoz no access to water in desert >11% of subsaharan africa is desert

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:33:45 2011 No.2921676 Eugenics and "master-races" are stupid, dumb fantasies. Think communism is bad in practice? Eugenics is 10x worse. Population control at birth, on the other hand...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:33:45 2011 No.2921678 Do not believe that a master race exists Do believe that eugenics exists

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:34:45 2011 No.2921680 >>2921666 So if the bus was good why did you own a car to begin with? You just outlined how scientific solutions are often stupid.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:36:45 2011 No.2921687

>>2921652

Well yeah their is always a better solution somewhere. But a good concept can equal a good solution. There is always compromise and cost, but the goal is to solve the problem of dehydration. Distilling seawater may be costly, but it is still a good solution because it utilizes the huge supply of seawater to create drinkable water.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:38:45 2011 No.2921696 >>2921680 How are my solutions stupid? Maybe the car was a gift? I dont know I didn't post that example.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:39:45 2011 No.2921699 >>2921628 so which face is it

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:39:45 2011 No.2921700 The principle reason why I'm against euthanasia and genetic engineering is that it's too easy for people to use it for nefarious purposes.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:39:45 2011 No.2921701

>>2921687

Maybe.

Maybe you are right. my point is we wont fully understand the costs or ramifications until someone actually goes and tries to do this.

What if by destilling seawater there is some unintented environmental affect, like, suddenly we end up producing a lot more fresh water than what the enironment is use to, and there is climate change in some regions becoming wetter, and some regions being stripped of their soils due to increased rain fall?

That might not happen, Im just trying to brainstorm some problems.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:40:45 2011 No.2921706

>>2921696

The car was a gift...

....what does that mean? It was a gift so it had no value or purpose?

Okay, what if it wasnt a gift, what if you worked really hard and spend thousands of hours detailing it and taking care of it?

how about, no amount of what ifs will compensate the fact that you sold something to solve a debt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:42:45 2011 No.2921712 >>2921701 Then you have a whole new problem which needs a solution. At least no one would die of dehydration. Don't get too caught up in definitions.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:43:45 2011 No.2921721

>>2921687

that wasn't really what set off the flame war.

it was more the people claiming that distillation could be achieved with one-dollar garbage bags and plastic buckets.

irl, a distillation mechanism for a modern farm would look something like pic related, which would cost a little bit more than a dollar.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:44:45 2011 No.2921727 >>2921706 Then you wouldn't sell it. You would sell something else or murder the person who you owed money to. Pick the best solution to solve the problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:45:45 2011 No.2921732 >>2921712 the whole point of this thread is that: plastic bags =/= solution to worldwide water scarcity

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:46:45 2011 No.2921733 >>2921721 It wouldn't matter the cost. If the problem was that urgent, they would be built.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:46:45 2011 No.2921736
File: 37 KB, 713x287, mosquitoessolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2921712

....

Yes so poorly thought out solutions invented and perpetuated by scientists who have no real responsibility or understanding of the consequences of their ideas are causing problems.

Thats it. I dont need to say anything more. I came hear, said what I said, made it clear to you and now I am done.

Besides climate change might end up causing more death and problems, and maybe even hydration problems than it solved. Its like a never ending cycle of scientific short sightedness

Picture related.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:47:45 2011 No.2921737 the basement dwelling neckbeards in our ranks agree with it...those of us with actual lives and social experience know it's a bunch of bullshit

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:48:45 2011 No.2921744

>>2921732

No one said it was...

We just had to prove to some little boy that it is possible to convert seawater to drinking water. If it was a world wide problem, we would build huge distilleries. There would be lots of demand for water so the cost would be justified.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:49:45 2011 No.2921755 >>2921733 >>2921733 >cost doesn't matter stopped reading there /sci/ cannot into real world problems or solutions

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:50:45 2011 No.2921761 >>2921755 I think you are the same guy who brofisted me above. I just want to say "yep" ...yep...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:51:45 2011 No.2921767 >>2921736 burning coal for power l-pollution buying food because your hungry -spending money There is a negative to every solution. We were talking hypothetically.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:54:45 2011 No.2921784 >>2921761 >>2921755 see >>2921744 Water would become valuable. Demand would be huge making the building of water distillation lucrative. You don't stop building a casino because of the cost.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:55:45 2011 No.2921792 >>2921767 I understand there are costs. The problem is there are costs not accounted for, and not only are they not accounted for, they arent anticipated. What makes some solutions worth it, is the benefit outweighs the cost.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 22:57:45 2011 No.2921803

Ive been posting in here the whole time, but now that we are talking about costs I think its type to reveal my trip.

>>2921784

I dont think we are talking about distilling sea water specifically, but more scientific "solutions" in general.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:57:45 2011 No.2921804 File: 380 KB, 600x378, CHINA-STRONG.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] CHINA STRONG ASIAN MASTERRACE WILL RULE OVER ALL OTHER RACES BEHOLD OUR EXOSKELETONS AND ROBOT ARMIES

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:58:45 2011 No.2921809 >>2921792 Which costs are not accounted for? All costs should be accounted for before deciding anything. Your taking things out of context.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 22:59:45 2011 No.2921815

>>2921761

yes, second fist.

>>2921767

I wasn't really talking about the negatives, that was more the other guy

what I mean is that proof that it can be done doesn't mean it can be done on a large scale.

you need a certain amount of water to create more water

you need to meet a threshold of food before you can make food surpluses

etc etc

if there were a water shortage coming, and we waited a little too long, then we might not be able to build enough distilleries in time.

or, the shortage would have taken its toll on workers already, and we wouldn't have enough manpower

etc etc

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:00:45 2011 No.2921817

everyone goes back to living like ancient greeks/romans/etc lived (no combustion propelled machines/electricity and healthier diet from no saturated fats etc). living in a more natural environment would probly increase death (animal attacks/disease) = less pop and stronger pop (more immune to local diseasse and better suited to environmen [natural selection] thereforre all problems are solved at once (global warming, too many peeps if u beleive that horseshit, obesity epidemic, it wud be fucking cool. PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!!! i can haz knowbelle priez?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:03:45 2011 No.2921832

>>2921809

The costs that arent accounted for are

1. The ones you dont know

2. the ones you dont care about

An example of ones you dont know would be like the great leap forward in China. They wanted to kill all the sparowes which were eating their crops, but they didnt take into account the fact that sparowes eat locusts. And when there werent any sparows to eat the locusts the locusts ate all the crops. hundreds of millions of people died by good intentions, and unknown costs.

A cost that you dont care about is one that doesnt affect you. pollution is an example. I produce bug spray at my factory, and I dont care how much I pollute because it has nothing to do with revenues or my personal costs, but it might costs tens of thousands of lives each year, and billions in healthcare costs.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:04:45 2011 No.2921840

>>2921815

We would see it coming unless there was some natural disaster/climate change. You also cant really predict what technology can and cannot do. Like another poster said "Necessity is the mother of invention" How can you say an efficiant distillary or something else wont be invented? Could anyone predict that we would be building space shuttles in the 1800's?

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:10:45 2011 No.2921876

>>2921832

I dont understand where that fits into the debate. There are costs with every solution, but it does not make it a bad one. You obviously pick the solution with the best outcome based on your priorities. If your a business and pollute by using pesticides it does not matter compared to your product yield. The pesticides are a great solution for that business.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:12:45 2011 No.2921886 >>2921840 *anyone from the 1800s

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:15:45 2011 No.2921904

>>2921876

I agree you pick the solution with the best outcome. We will say the good of an outcome = benefits - costs

However, scientists with no real world experience fail to consider the impacts of unknown costs, or the costs of implementing such a solution

>If your a business and pollute by using pesticides it does not matter compared to your product yield

they might not matter to the business but they might matter to the other people involved, like the people's health deteriorates because the pesticide gets into the water supply, or their food products.

You cant say a society with healthy people food prices at 110% is worst off by a neurologically damages, hormonally fucked up, society that has a life span 10 years shorter and food prices at 80%. Its an exaggeration but its an example.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:21:45 2011 No.2921933 >>2921904 But it does not matter. If the busniess' only goal is to make money then the health of the people is not a cost to them. (as long as they are not dying or know that the pestisides are decreasing their lifespan)

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:23:45 2011 No.2921940

>>2921933

Its not a cost "to them" but it is still a cost. And from society's point of view, it is detrimental. If the pesticides had no negative impact on people than you are right, they wouldnt contain that unaccounted for cost.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:24:45 2011 No.2921947 >>2921904 Also, scientists do factor in costs. This is called applied science. It is completely different from basic science. Scientists who work on applied research attempt to factor in all costs and benifiets when developing a product.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:26:45 2011 No.2921955

>>2921947

>Scientists who work on applied research attempt to factor in all costs
>attempt to factor
>attempt

And the reality is you cant factor in all costs becuase you wont be able to figure out what all the costs are until well after you have actualized what you were trying to do to begin with.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:29:45 2011 No.2921968

>>2921940

It is not a cost to THEM so THEY don't need to worry about it. That becomes someone else's problem as long as the government does not step in and tell them to stop. So the pestisides remain a good solution to increasing product yield.

Also, did you know potato farmers grow there own food separate from the food that they sell because they know how much pesticides they drown there crops in?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:31:45 2011 No.2921974 >>2921955 Well yeah, its impossible to calculate, but if we did not try anyways technology would not exist. There is no science without trial and error. What are you trying to say?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:33:45 2011 No.2921987 >>2921974 >>2921974 we're trying to say, if solution x makes sense in one's head, solution x may or may not be viable.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:35:45 2011 No.2921993
File: 71 KB, 357x290, 1273466965825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2921968

Well, if they have any regard for the well being of society then they should worry about it. In reality, some companies are ethical and some arent, and the government should step in when they arent.

I never said they "need" to worry about it though. but it is a cost. I originally said it was an unaccounted cost they dont need to worry about.

When we are talking about scientists and political policy, I would hope the well being of society would be in their interest.

You are really pushing it and getting semantic when you are saying "its a good solution, because the immense cost to society isnt my concern." You will never be in a circumstance where you could pull off the statement:

"its a great solution! It will just leave generations of our people mentally retarded, but, for now, in my innocent clueless reality... THIS IS A GREAT IDEA"

>Also, did you know potato farmers grow there own food separate from the food that they sell because they know how much pesticides they drown there crops in?

>mfw you generalize a behavior to be universal among all potato farmers

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:36:45 2011 No.2922001

>>2921974

Well maybe we shouldnt "try anyways"

Maybe we should try and anticipate problems when we understand we are venturing into the unknown.

Maybe we should be more careful, and take the impacts on innocent third parties into account.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:36:45 2011 No.2922003 >>2921987 make sense as in the solution wont work? Why would the solution be viable if the scientist knows it wont work?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:38:45 2011 No.2922007 >>2922001 I just said it is impossible to calculate all of the costs. Now your going into ethics.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:41:45 2011 No.2922022

>>2922007

So what?
I think this is a fundamentally ethical issue.

If the costs are difficult to calculate, in terms of their magnitude, and the scope of their impacts. Should you proceed?

I dont think Im changing the subject here. Ive always been saying the same thing, and what I have been saying is hinges on whether the costs are imaginable, or considerable, or calculatable.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:41:45 2011 No.2922029

>>2921993

PRIORITIES

we where talking about a hypithetical busniess who had a single goal of making money. In this case, the pesticides were a great solution to make maximum profits.

If the business had the priorities to make money, and have a healthy product, then the pesticides would not be a great solution.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:44:45 2011 No.2922044 >>2921676 > it's bad because nazis did it

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:44:45 2011 No.2922045

>>2922029

I dont get what you are trying to tell me.

It would be foolish to say the health impacts of your products and the feelings of the government have nothing to do with making money. You could be the most greedy, cynical, cold hearted company on earth, and it would still be wise to consider the environmental impacts of your operations.

Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:45:45 2011 No.2922047

>>2922022

when developing anything that is new and has not been done before, ALL costs are difficult to calculate, in terms of their magnitude, and the scope of their impacts. Yes you should precede so that you can study the above and refine your product to minimize these costs.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:47:45 2011 No.2922057

>>2922047

I would agree.

Which is why I have been arguing a concept is different than a solution. And which is why I have been arguing scientists are stereotypically known to be bad at coming up with solutions because they dont recognize the difference between a concept provable in a lab, and the actualization of a solution based off those concepts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:47:45 2011 No.2922059 >>2922045 Please don't make me repeat myself. We were oversimplifying a hypothetical situation for the sake of argument. Of coarse a business will also have priorities of government regulations. These would also be factored in in a real situation.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Wed Apr 20 23:50:45 2011 No.2922076

>>2922059

Yeah, it doesnt mean you can factor everything in, because you dont know, or care about everything.

I know I am giving reasons why a company MIGHT care about the impacts of their operations, but it doesnt mean the would.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:50:45 2011 No.2922081 >>2921349 We've developed a master race of corn, why not humans?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:51:45 2011 No.2922084 >>2922057 No >actualization of a solution based off those concepts Yeah that would be scientists who do that. Who are you trying to say does? If this is really what the argument was I want my 30 mins back.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:52:45 2011 No.2922091 >>2922076 Of course youj know everything, you are a scientist

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:54:45 2011 No.2922098 >>2922076 Ok now I am getting pissed. 8/10 PRIORITIES A business will have to make a decision based on what is more important to them. The priorities that they cant factor in are part of the costs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 20 23:58:45 2011 No.2922120 145+ post about eugenics only one person mentions genetic solution to be a far more economical solution then eugenics is. You have changed haven't you /sci/

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 00:01:45 2011 No.2922136

>>2922084

I dont think scientists actualize anything. I think thats more like business people and engineers who actually go out and try and work out ideas.

Not to say a scientist couldnt. If you spend time in your garage tinkering with stuff you are in some ways actualizing something. Its just usually not scientists who end up actualizing these large scale solutions, and usually as soon as they spend time in the real world they cease being scientists.

I dont mean to make a real world vs lab dichotomy. Science is good. Im just saying.

>>2922091

Aw man, I forgot. you are right.

>>2922098

I dont get it. Youve said "Priorities" in all caps a few times. Saying the same word over and over again doesnt further a point.

>The priorities that they cant factor in are part of the costs.

Priorities are about values. Are you talking about opportunity cost or something? What are you trying to say? So what if you have priorities

A priority is not the same as a cost. You are right, if its not a priority to take care of people and I end up hurting society, its a cost to society. But not a cost to me.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:09:45 2011 No.2922183

> I think thats more like business people and engineers who actually go out and try and work out ideas.

LOL no. Busniss' hire applied scientists to interpret research and come up with or improve a product.

>A priority is not the same as a cost. You are right, if its not a priority to take care of people and I end up hurting society, its a cost to society. But not a cost to me

reread what you typed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:10:45 2011 No.2922190 gl dying of parasites "master race"

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:11:45 2011 No.2922193 >>2922136 Priorities are not values, they are a list of goals in order of importance. I am repeating PRIORITES not to further my point, but to repeat my point and try to reword it so you can understand.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 00:14:45 2011 No.2922207

>>2922183

>LOL no. Busniss' hire applied scientists to interpret research and come up with or improve a product.

Sure okay, I can believe that.

I want to point out that when making something better, there is no end point, and you are constantly discovering new ways to make something efficient.

>Priorities are not values, they are a list of goals in order of importance. I am repeating PRIORITES not to further my point, but to repeat my point and try to reword it so you can understand.

Okay, I fully accept this.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:17:45 2011 No.2922216

I think every smart person in society should be entitled to rape anybody they like. Everybody that has been convicted of felony should be castrated. Birth control should be mandatory and free for stupid people. Only then will the human race make some kind of progress.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:18:45 2011 No.2922222

>>2922207
I have said many times that priorities that dont make the cut turn into costs.

>I want to point out that when making something better, there is no end point, and you are constantly discovering new ways to make something efficient

yes, but it does not make the first idea that started it out a bad one if it solved the original problem, even if it required costs that may cause other problems. That is what science is trial and error. You just solve each problem as they come and refine each solution.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 00:21:45 2011 No.2922235

>>2922222

>I have said many times that priorities that dont make the cut turn into costs.

So? So what? So what if they turn into costs? First of all they wont always turn into costs. Not doing something doesnt imply a cost.

If you use a deadly pesticide that is cheaper for you, the costs arent yours. They are society's cost. It never becomes your cost, and as an individual firm you might never ever consider it.

>You just solve each problem as they come and refine each solution.

But sometimes the costs are enormous and not at all worth it.

Its just reckless, and irresponsible. Cant you see that?

"Eh, yeah, it might come at an enormous cost, but whatever, Ill worry about that later" - You and the stereotypical scientist

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:24:45 2011 No.2922256 >>2921349 look at what intense inbreeding did to dog breeds and the royal family

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:26:45 2011 No.2922264 >>2922235 you sound like a dumbass economist. learn about "real options" and how they turn the valuation of technology investments completely around, and come back.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:28:45 2011 No.2922276

>>2922235

>So? So what? So what if they turn into costs? First of all they wont always turn into costs. Not doing something doesnt imply a cost.

Yes, not doing something if it is one of your priorities (goals that you would like to have) is in fact, a cost.

>Its just reckless, and irresponsible. Cant you see that?

"Eh, yeah, it might come at an enormous cost, but whatever, Ill worry about that later" - You and the stereotypical scientist

What? Do you understand how the process even works? You need to understand that it is not one scientist, but many teams of scientists who are employed to solve a solution. When they finally do, it is submitted to be reviewed by peers before it is accepted. Every detail must be accounted for or else it is rejected. If there is an error in productivity, it is scrapped. No one ever takes a gamble like you have just described.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:31:45 2011 No.2922284 >>2922256 people feed them for entertainment?

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 00:34:45 2011 No.2922294

>>2922264

I know what that is. What are you trying to say?

>Yes, not doing something if it is one of your priorities (goals that you would like to have) is in fact, a cost.

Well who said public health was a priority to begin with?

>You need to understand that it is not one scientist, but many teams of scientists who are employed to solve a solution. When they finally do, it is submitted to be reviewed by peers before it is accepted. Every detail must be accounted for or else it is rejected. If there is an error in productivity, it is scrapped. No one ever takes a gamble like you have just described.

Who are you refering to? Scientists?

I under stand scientists undergo a lot of scrutiny when proposing ideas. But a concept =/= a solution, which is what we said way way way back up this thread.

Scientists arent in the field of application, there are in the field of research and discovering truth. there is a barrier here. You can discover something really cool, and do it with a large team of scientists, and write up a paper that under goes a lot of scrutiny. like discovering that all galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other, and all the scrutiny means nothing when you are working in a practical application of that knowledge.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:34:47 2011 No.2922296 [DELETED]

>>2922264 was a response to:

>>2922235
>You just solve each problem as they come and refine each solution.

But sometimes the costs are enormous and not at all worth it.

Its just reckless, and irresponsible. Cant you see that?

"Eh, yeah, it might come at an enormous cost, but whatever, Ill worry about that later" - You and the stereotypical scientist.

im a finance major and the "sterotypical scientist" (probably a 14 year old but anyways) is actually right, future options such as the option to cut investment or invest more have value, and need to be taken into account when valuing technology investments. its known as the theory of "real options"
http://www.puc-rio.br/marco.ind/ro-links.html#portals

apparently they don't teach that to econ fags.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:38:45 2011 No.2922316

>>2922294
>I know what that is. What are you trying to say?

if you understood real options then you would understand that the idea of "solving each problem as it comes and refining the solution" makes all the difference when valuing technology investments, because if you have a long shot technology and you invest a little to find out if it works and it doesnt, you can cut your losses, but if it does work, then you can make tons, and reinvest even more to make even more. if you don't take into account these options, you will never invest in technology.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 00:41:45 2011 No.2922330

>>2922296

Oh my God...

I understand that... I feel totally overwhelmed about this.

I understand how you finance guys work. I understand how you calculate future value. Thats not what I am talking about though.

Im saying, scientific ideas are often by nature completely new. And also can have unanticipated costs. I dont mean like, monetary costs, although its really easy to talk about when we use monetary costs. But I mean like, human health, and damage to the ecosystem.

Like, a scientist comes up with a great idea on how to solve the oil crisis

My stereotypical scientist persona is stupid enough to not consider those financy future cost analyses, and also doesnt realize that the mechanism of his idea will... lets say... do something crazy... like cause volcanos to just erupt all the time (not plausible, Im just saying)

>>	They gave The Unabomber internet in prison Thu Apr 21 00:43:27 2011 No.2922344 >>2922316 yeah but Ive been saying this the whole time: you dont know what problems your technology will cause, because the scope of what you are doing is so big. When I say costs, I dont mean monetary costs.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 00:46:45 2011 No.2922361 >>2922316 yeah but Ive been saying this the whole time: you dont know what problems your technology will cause, because the scope of what you are doing is so big. When I say costs, I dont mean monetary costs.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:48:45 2011 No.2922369

>>2922294

>Scientists arent in the field of application

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science

checkmate

now please dont argue about topics that you have no knowledge of. And if you say engineers are not scientists, there are actually many fields of applied science. These scientists are hired by busniesses to develop products. They include scientists with pure science degrees as well such as physics and math phds. In drug development, many genetics and chemistry phds also work to develop products and pesticides.

im out

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 00:51:45 2011 No.2922394 >>2922369 You keep saying this "applied scientist" idea, but we call them engineers in real life. Its a really flimsy point. Do "applied scientists" exist in real life? Applied scientists arent scientists

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:53:45 2011 No.2922412

>>2922361
that is a SERIOUSLY fucking retarded argument. I don't think you will find any decent economists who would agree with you on that, considering every worthwhile thing ever created by our economy was created by science/math.

literally every improvement in standard of living has come from technology, so what are you even trying to say?

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:55:45 2011 No.2922423 >>2922394 READ THE REST OF HIS POST AND LEAVE /SCI/

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:56:45 2011 No.2922440 >>2922394 I think he means r&d science as opposed to general science. Science->#R&D->Engineer

StormTroll !GnYU8vo7lA Thu Apr 21 00:57:45 2011 No.2922448

The reason that people starve and die in undeveloped nations is because they are stupid darkies. Period. They shit where they eat and millions of them die each month from that alone. Simply digging a latrine pit and using water sources not near that and BOILING WATER would save millions, but these faggots are too stupid.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 00:58:45 2011 No.2922451

>>2922412

I dont see the relevance about the economists statement. Im just saying this. I dont view what I am saying as something I learned in school. My name has no purpose here other than identification.

>literally every improvement in standard of living has come from technology

I would disagree. And Ive pointed out a few counter examples, like pollution, and the great leap forward.

>>2922440

Okay, if thats the case then I shouldnt apply my complaint to all scientists. Ive just never heard of this kind of scientist, and frankly it seems to violate my notion of what science is. But, whatever, its okay.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 00:59:45 2011 No.2922463

>>2922440

basic research

applied research

Its all the same process just different goals. Their are basic science journals describing metabolic pathways and there are pharmaceutical journals describing how to manipulate them to cure an illness. Its all science and this argument is ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 01:01:45 2011 No.2922479 >>2922451 so your saying anything that creates pollution should not have been created because its too risky? GTFO

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 01:01:45 2011 No.2922480 >>2922423 Samefag. >>2922440 WTF is "general science"? Is that like high school chemistry class?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 01:03:45 2011 No.2922498 >>2922479 Nope, thats not what i am saying. You want me to say what I think, or are you just going to set up a straw man to yell "GTFO" at again?

>>	retarded /sci/ economist !!cS81Ge39P4T Thu Apr 21 01:04:45 2011 No.2922506 HEY GUISE, TECHNOLOGY IS EVIL BECAUSE OF POLLUTION. I THINK WE SHOULD STOP ALL TECHNOLOGY SO THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE, AMIRIGHT?

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 01:04:45 2011 No.2922511 >>2922506 I disagree.

>>	homosex /sci/ economist Thu Apr 21 01:07:45 2011 No.2922533 >>2922506 I dissagree. We need pollution to kill some people or else the world will be overpopulated and we will run out of water.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 01:08:45 2011 No.2922536 >>2922463 Nah, whats rediculous is you can't see the difference between some guy plugging numbers into equations and another one creating equations to plug numbers into

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 01:09:45 2011 No.2922546 >>2922533 Thats not quite how I feel either. But, as much as I would like to talk to caricaturizated versions of myself, I need to go. If you want to talk to me later Ill remember you.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 01:12:45 2011 No.2922557
File: 312 KB, 1650x1050, 1302290113461.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I do believe we need an eugenics program...

However, we need to focus primarily on weeding out deleterious traits, and secondarily on improving (and recognizing) desirable ones.

We also need to find a way to measure peoples potential. You see, if we kill of all fatties, we might improve the gene pool... but we might also have removed a great many people who where only fat because of their lifestyle and genetically could have been extremely fit & strong individuals.

Same thing with intelligence. Some people act dumb, are ignorant, etc. but actually have a great capacity to learn, remember, and reason... that they just hide or don't use. So if you kill off everyone who fails academically, you very well could be removing lots of intelligent people from the gene pool.

Some things I believe are pretty obvious though, such as myopia. I think to deal with this we should make infaniticide legal up to the age of 5 or so and find ways to identify such problems before they develop so we can euthanize the children that don't turn out well before it's too late and they realize what it means to die. If it's done early enough, it's no different than any animal dying, as they haven't truly developed that level of comprehension.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 01:19:45 2011 No.2922593 >>2922536 Oh I know the difference. Although it doesn't make either one less of a scientist.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 01:36:45 2011 No.2922660

>>2922533
Pollutions lowers the carrying capacity of the environment itself though.

I say we need more fatal diseases to solve the worlds overpopulation problem. Medicare is in a way the greatest evil the species has ever faced. After a certain point, it stopped helping and became a nightmare. Probably when it became sickcare as opposed to healthcare and when those sick people brought it upon themselves or are just always sick because of genetics.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 01:41:45 2011 No.2922686

>>2922506
We need technology to spread life around the universe; however, we really need to minimize the pollution. We can only sacrifice so much in the name of technological advancement before we kill off the species.

Actually, technological innovation isn't so much the problem; it's how people utilize technology. If we didn't try to turn all third-world countries into first-world ones for example and create a bigger middle class, there'd be a hell of a lot pollution and wastage of resources on what essentially is making life comfortable for the masses.

If we want everyone to have a good life, we need to reduce the number of people there are.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 01:47:45 2011 No.2922719 we have a eugenics program, but it isn't about breeding people "out", its about separating the population into two new species.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 03:06:45 2011 No.2923093

>Its obvious some races are better than others
>Its obvious that population problems are always caused by the shittiest countries(India, China) and never by good or even ok counties(USA, Uk, Japan).

Really all the shit countries need to have some chemical sprayed on them that decreased the average human reproduction rate, as if they were animals or plants.

They fuck because they are poor, selfcentered, retards, who in turn produce more poor, selfcentered, retards.

They only exist in the first place because of technology invented by the good counties, then given to people who shouldnt have it.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 03:11:19 2011 No.2923112

>>2922451
You are an idiot.

Yea technology is so bad that its increased the average human lifespan by 3x, and increased the population from under 1 billion for the last billion years to 9 billion in just 250.

Problem isnt technology, its nigger of all colors being allowed to use technology.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 05:36:45 2011 No.2923445 a

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 06:05:45 2011 No.2923520

>>2923112

How did I get labeled the anti-technology guy? Thats not what I was saying at all.

Anyway, I think its a myth that the human life span has increased three fold. measuring "life span" includes babies, who died shortly after bird" The infant mortality rate has decrease three fold. The modal age of dead is around 70 no matter where or when you lived.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 06:20:45 2011 No.2923564 >>2921462 You are the kind of asshole who can't pull his head out of his ass. 70% covered in water? 0.6% is actually drinkable. Will we do more agriculture? Yeah, and destroy even more forest in the meantime. Real, real smart. =)

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 06:27:45 2011 No.2923582 >>2923564 Read the thread before posting, shit for brains

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 06:31:45 2011 No.2923592 >>2921968 What is it that you don't understand? It doesn't matter whether the cost is on the company's side or the public's. IT'S STILL A COST. IT STILL AFFECTS PEOPLE.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 06:35:45 2011 No.2923598 >>2922448 They're too poor to boil water you fucking asshole

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 06:49:45 2011 No.2923634

>does /sci/ think of population control

What >>2921365 said.

>and the idea of a "master race"?

So long as your talking about enhancing/modifying the human form to suit environments it can not normally function and/or survive in (such as space), and that this change is run openly (no set power base); with ethical parameters(with the exception of things that flat out make our lives better--like technological immortality/anti-aging), and is free for anyone...I am ok with it.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:03:45 2011 No.2923681

Skimmed through the thread and it seems /sci/s big fear (or at least the one which stood out to me) is the 'natural' selection of idiots as poor people have more children. Sounds a brutal way to put it, but it is all very statistically true in both the developed world and the developing world. Socioeconomic class 1 has consistently lower measures of intelligence and high birth rates.

You then plot this on a graph and using data from the 1980s you can calculate that the entire world population will have an IQ of 48 by the year 2006. I'm being facetious with that calculation, though my point stands.

Genetics plays such a small role in what a person becomes. This seems to be something that many people have difficulty getting their head about. The effect of minute differences for the coding and structure of proteins in our brains is insignificant to the years of environmental pressures, be it physical impacts such as malnutrition during gestation or simply the experiences we're bombarded with throughout our lives.

If you want to make a 'master-race', widescale social change would be far more effective than any sterilization/breeding programme.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Thu Apr 21 07:07:45 2011 No.2923697 File: 11 KB, 480x360, 1296279618930.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Eugenics is pointless. Let everyone get transhuman upgrades.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:08:45 2011 No.2923699 >>2923598 >too poor to boil water what.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:09:45 2011 No.2923702 >>2923598 business student detected

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:11:45 2011 No.2923704

Population control is good, but it should be based solely on the ability to provide for and raise a child (income, wealth), not genetics, fitness or shit like that. Except for small fraction of obvious cases who dont procreate even now (medically retarded people), you cannot quantify genetic fitness reliably, and also fitness is not a one-dimensional quality.

There certainly should be something done about people who procreate excessively while not posessing ability to provide for their children so they can become contributing members of the society. People on longterm welfare should not be allowed to have more than 2-3 children. The same goes for poor people in third world countries where welfare does not exist. Irresponsible procreation should be a crime, since there is a victim - the child, and the society (which pays for the care when parent is unable to). We should all learn from Chinese and Iran (which also had good pop growth control program, thats also why its no longer such shithole as it was).

Two-child policy for the poor!

Also, master race is shit. Average differences between races are small, individual differences are far more important.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:26:45 2011 No.2923739

The thing about eugenics, is that the decision for who gets to breed and who doesn't is necessarily in the hands of biased and short-sighted people.

They may have noble goals, make people smarter, live longer, whatever. But if you are doing this before we have the technology to sequence DNA, predict the effects of changes in the body of any alterations to that DNA, and do so virtually on demand, you would have no idea what you are doing. You could, and probably would, end up breeding in congenital defects, as happens in big dogs with hip dysplasia and heart defects. And if we're doing this PAST the point that we have this technology, it is pointless, because we can make whatever alterations we want to the individuals, at most wasting a single generation of a few people suffering discomfort or reduced capacity, and possibly only wasting as little as few months of discomfort as the errors become apparent and are fixed.

No, eugenics only works if you have the technology to really understand and manipulate DNA. And when you are at that stage, eugenics is already obsolete.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:27:45 2011 No.2923740 File: 450 KB, 430x239, yay.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2923697 >Hugs

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:40:45 2011 No.2923766

>>2923739

lolno. Eugenics is basically artificial selection. You do not need to know the genome, or the effects of genes. You just choose which people get to breed based on whether they posess desirable qualities. It is agnstic of the underlying genetic mechanism.

Learn2evolution

Dog breeds that are bred for good health do not suffer from health defects. Its those that are bred for other qualities, like being cute or run fast etc.

Anyway, genetic engineering is the future of eugenics.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:50:45 2011 No.2923794

>>2923766

Maybe you didn't get my point.

When we breed for big dogs, we get big dogs. Unbeknownst to us, we also bred in congenital defects. When natural selection breeds for big dogs, the slight percentage of unfitness in dogs with slightly worse hearts or hips adds up over time. So as the dogs become larger over the generations, these little problems are worked out without issue, until they reach a limit where they cannot become more fit by getting larger. When people do it, we select for the few things we can tell by looking at the outside of the dog, and in our limited timescales. So we get unintentional side-effects.

My point is that without a certain level of understanding of genetics, this is what human eugenics would be full of. In the first place it would be done to some arbitrary standard set by some organisation or another. They would not be unbiased in their selections. And in the second place, we would have no idea if what we were doing to increase intelligence in this generation doesn't cause some problem further down the line.

Artificial selection is putting a population through a set of artificial selective criteria, through an artificially thorough selective scythe, through an artificially narrow population cataract. This problem is magnified, not lessened, when it comes to doing it to humans, with our long lifespans, long gestation and maturation cycles, and the necessarily biased ideals of those enacting the eugenics.

We already select for things that make us successful, naturally. For eugenics to work, you must select for things that are not normally successful, but you have a feeling will be successful later on.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 07:52:45 2011 No.2923799 Eugenics works. It has been done with African slaves and it worked so well that they dominate quite a bit in athletics. The only problems would be mortal implications and mortality is for faggots in the face of science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 14:23:45 2011 No.2925130 >>2923799 Don't you mean morality not mortality?

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 15:21:45 2011 No.2925386
File: 79 KB, 615x410, 1296373240203.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2921382
>And believe it or not, but a lot of the time in order to develop a great gene you first need to develop a negative one.
I always wondered about that, like some bad genes could be stepping stones towards evolving a better one. I assumed nobody really did any studies on that though.
>>2921462
You can't just ship off excess population to space. Humans are cheap and common and it costs an absolute crapton in materials, resources, etc. to send people off to new planets, to terraform them, build arcologies, etc. We can establish colonies in space using the best and hardiest of humans to expand our population, but we can't use space to deal with excess population from Earth.

We've been overpopulated for thousands of years now (ever since we surpassed 200 million). Just 10,000 years ago there was only about a million of us in the world. Think about that.

Take a look at this http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/forests/solutions/our-disappearing-forests/

We've lost most of our forests and destroyed/maimed many other biomes. Our agriculture relies on easily accessed fresh water, plastics & fuels that come from oil, and fertilizer which is mined and in limited supply.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 15:26:45 2011 No.2925410 >>2925130 >flash in the pants >diamond dozen >punch of salt >doggie dog world

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 19:45:45 2011 No.2926713
File: 311 KB, 1164x823, Biocapacity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I don't think this should be used as an excuse to beef up the population even more than it already is, but couldn't we dig a vast network of irrigation canals in the dessert, establish marshes to filter salt, and thus create an abundance of freshwater which can sustain a tropical/marsh biome with a greater biocapacity than arid dessert?

←Take a look at the pic.

Keep in mind that a lot of these places became fucked over in the firstplace because of human overpopulation btw. We can't really sustain bigger populations but we could work on reducing population while creating a sustainable food supply through habitat restoration in regions that are basically dead right now.

Anonymous Thu Apr 21 19:57:45 2011 No.2926762

>>2926713
The problem with food isn't production, it's distribution. We currently grow enough food to support ~12 billion people (http://ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=38372)) and with more advanced crop systems and farming tech that number will just go up. The problem is getting to the people that need it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 21 19:59:45 2011 No.2926775 Nature finds a way of controlling the population. Eventually. Prepare yourselves for the black death mark 2.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Thu Apr 21 20:03:45 2011 No.2926795

Whoa this topic still exists?

In my opinion, overpopulation is just a symptom. While its true not everyone is getting food, over population is enabled by modern agriculture. The reason why not everyone is getting food is because modern agriculture is naturally controlled by fewer, highly specialized, highly efficient producers. Power over food isnt in the hands of everyone.

I think moder agricultural methods are unsustainable, and risky, and will eventually come to an end.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math