/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 22 KB, 280x216, eugenics_logo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 06:47:42 2011 No.3255371 [Reply] [Original]

How the heck do more people here not support a strong eugenics movement?

If you understand natural selection at all, it is clearly a guaranteed way to improve the humans race intelligence.

Why is everyone so an-al pained about it? Sure, some people will have to live not being sterile, but its worth it in the long run.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 06:49:42 2011 No.3255374 because if everyone was okay with giving up personal gains and privileges for the benefit of the entire human race socialism would work

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 06:50:42 2011 No.3255376 Because only morons who have very little knowledge of genetics actually believe in eugenics. The only people who should be sterilised against their will are people who believe that people should be sterilised against their will

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Mon Jun 20 06:50:42 2011 No.3255377 File: 254 KB, 398x360, 13645647.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3255371 what? that last part doesn't sound right, i think you have 'sterile' and 'not being sterile' backwards.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 06:52:42 2011 No.3255381

>>3255376
But, believing that will actually make an effect is contradicting yourself. Showing that on some level, yes you do believe in eugenics.

Cows breed larger, flies get more wings,bacteria "learn" how to digest new materials, all by selecting for it

If you could provide an argument about natural selection that somehow makes it impossible for those things to happen to the human brain(when we already have an example of a high and low intelligence race, see jews and black people) then give it

Dicks Mon Jun 20 06:54:42 2011 No.3255385

>>3255376

This.

OP, are you some kind of idiot? Eugenics would not necessarily increase intelligence; rather it would just increase the occurrence of people who happened to display SIGNS of intelligence. Nevermind the fact that this would increase the proportion of sociopaths, much of the lack of intelligence stem from environmental conditions. Can you really blame someone for being stupid when their bitch of a mother drank every week while pregnant, despite the possibility that their genes may have been excellent?

>>	EK !EKFQQAJWYU Mon Jun 20 06:56:42 2011 No.3255389 Eugenics (as in understanding and manipulating genes) - Good Eugenics (as in compulsory sterilisation) - Bad.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 06:57:42 2011 No.3255392

>>3255385

eugenics also lends itself to the...

Fucking namefaggotry, I thought I deleted it.

Anyway, Eugenics lends itself to the possibility that people will sterilize for political reasons, something that has always happened as far as eugenics is concerned. In order to have this system work, you'd need an excellent, non corrupt government and and an already intelligent, informed public.

Oh wait.

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Jun 20 06:57:42 2011 No.3255393

Because it's just a messier, less precise and civil rights obliterating form of genetic engineering. Why bother with it when we have genetic engineering? Why?

There are plentiful arguments against permitting a central authority to decide which traits to select for and impose it on the masses. There are no (compelling) moral arguments against offering parents the option to select whichever traits they consider preferable in their own children. Make it a matter of personal choice and a paid, voluntary service rather than mandatory and all arguments against it evaporate.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 06:58:42 2011 No.3255398

>>3255385
Yes, foolish signs of intelligence. Like being able to do well on a test after studying for it? Or high sat scores, which have been linked strongly to getting PHD's and patents. Before you argue with me, know your stuff.

And how is psychopathy linked to not having a criminal record? Are you going by some measurement where "lol all successful business men are meanis" True marking of a liberal

And what mother with solid stable genes would drink so much alcohol during pregnancy? Sure, you may eliminate a few good ones, but on AVERAGE, you are ridding the scum from the gene pool.

Just like, by killing all slow cheetas, you make the average ones faster. Sure, some may be battling infections, but luckily, you are making them more disease resistant too. Many good things in one go.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 06:58:42 2011 No.3255399

Eugenics doesn't work.

Human genetics isn't as simple as the OP imagines, especially if he thinks that merely restricting breeding opportunities would create a society filled with the intellectual elite.

Why? Because it's impossible to select for only positive traits, breeding in animals has taught us that in graphic detail.

It's not even if intelligence has been established to have an absolutely genetic basis, or even that if it has that we appreciate the potential outcome of such unwieldy manipulation of the gene pool.

>>	EK !EKFQQAJWYU Mon Jun 20 06:58:42 2011 No.3255400 Voluntary sterilisation - good Sterilisation by coercion and exhortation - bad

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 06:59:42 2011 No.3255404

Fine then people, what about voluntary eugenics?

What I find funny is that people will argue against eugenics being able to do anything, then support completely the idea of couples picking what they want in their kids

Liberals who are bad at critical thinking everywhere

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:00:42 2011 No.3255405 >>3255381 Not belief as in "I believe it would change things". Belief as in "I believe that it is a good thing". The fact of the matter is that people who think they're "superior" never are. They're just retards and white-power rednecks.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:00:42 2011 No.3255406

>>3255393

Parents might select for stereotyped traits that they believe are good, but in the long run could lead to alienation between child and parent thanks to the difference in personalities and a lack of personal sovereignty on the part of the child

EK !EKFQQAJWYU Mon Jun 20 07:01:42 2011 No.3255411

>>3255404
>What I find funny is that people will argue against eugenics being able to do anything, then support completely the idea of couples picking what they want in their kids

Yeah because 1 isn't the same as the other. Whatever made you think it was?

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:02:42 2011 No.3255415

What about a system where only people who get the top 10 percent of SAT scores, who are physically attractive and mentally stable can breed?

I know the second two will shut off most people here, but surely that will little negative effects(and great positive ones) if it could be done

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:02:42 2011 No.3255416 WHIATE POWUR! ALL NAGGERZ SHULD BE EXTURMINATD SO THAT A CAN IMPROVEZ THE HUMEN RACE N MAKE WE ALL SMARTER

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:03:42 2011 No.3255418 >>3255415 >attractive >intelligent >mentally stable You may only pick two

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:03:42 2011 No.3255419

>>3255411
Because,thinking eugenics can barely do anything, then arguing for parents picking traits in kids, is pretty stupid.

Eugenics is picking traits on a society wide scale, working with probabilities rather than cut and clean

Thinking eugenics can't do anything is just not understanding natural selection.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:03:42 2011 No.3255420 Because we haven't figured out the exact purpose of each and every gene yet, so we'd have to be nuts to start artificially decreasing the size of the gene pool. Just look at a couple dog breeds to see why excessive selection is a bad thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:04:42 2011 No.3255423 >>3255415 Phenotype and genotype can be worlds apart. Just because a gene has low expressivity,(the phenotype doesn't often appear in that particular population), don't assume that it won't assert itself in future pairings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:04:42 2011 No.3255425 >>3255418 Nope. That's just what you think There are plenty with all three who go to the ivy leagues And there used to be plenty who went to MIT. but now, for some reason, that population of all 3 has decreased Go to an ivy if you can

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:05:42 2011 No.3255428 because of the holocaust, we're still thinking about eugenics emotionally rather than objectively. Thanks Hitler for holding back progress so much even after you died.

>>	EK !EKFQQAJWYU Mon Jun 20 07:05:42 2011 No.3255430 >>3255419 >working with probabilities rather than cut and clean Yeah see that's the difference. Quite a substantial one at that.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:06:42 2011 No.3255433

>>3255398

>confuse psychopath with sociopath
>Doesn't understand that sociopaths display signs of intelligent and are excellent at manipulating people
>will choose crimes that keep them out of jail
>Human predators preserved by virtue of "Intelligence"

>Comparing unlike things

>Strawmen, strawmen everywhere

Look, your system is blatantly presumptuous. It presumes that intelligence is borne entirely of genes, when it's not. Your system would keep the educated stupid in, and the potential genius with shitty upbringing out. For someone who likes to throw around the word "liberal", you're surprisingly naive about how this system lends itself to ourruption. do you honestly think people aren't going to use their positions of power to keep their friends and whatnot from being sterilized? furthermore, do you honestly want to be responsible for the lessening of genetic diversity of the human race?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:07:42 2011 No.3255438 Hey OP. You have been selected as unfit for reproduction. Report to the nearest clinic for sterilisation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:07:42 2011 No.3255440 >>3255405 What? If you had a daughter, who would you want her breeding with? A redneck, or a man from harvard medical school So you do recognize that some individuals are superior by answering yes to the above question

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:07:42 2011 No.3255441

>>3255415
So that would mean only about, oh let's be generous, 3% of humanity is allowed to reproduce, based on three entirely subjective indicators that really don't have all that much to do with what's needed in real life.

A society needs more than smart, stable, sexy people to succeed friend. It also needs more than 3% of its population to breed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:07:42 2011 No.3255442 Eugenics is nothing but virgins trying to rationalise the destruction of their sexual opponents. Anyone who says otherwise is a filthy liar. Enjoy your hand, losers

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:08:42 2011 No.3255449 >>3255440 If I had a daughter I would let her breed with anybody she wanted to. It is not my right, or anybody else's right to dictate who she can and can't breed with. Fuck you

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Jun 20 07:09:42 2011 No.3255451

>>3255419

>>Parents might select for stereotyped traits that they believe are good, but in the long run could lead to alienation between child and parent thanks to the difference in personalities and a lack of personal sovereignty on the part of the child

So what? That's their problem. That's the entire point. So long as it's the individual's choice, the moral responsibility is on them, and nobody can claim they are being oppressed.

We don't protect people from making bad decisions in other areas of life. I don't see why the potential for parents to make bad decisions somehow dooms consumer genetic engineering.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:10:42 2011 No.3255453

>>3255433
"educated stupid"

What, are you some kind of underachiever who believes they are a genius? Did you know that albert einstein went to a pretty high ranking college in germany

hurr durr, educated stupid. Unlike the free thinkers on the internet.

And that word genetic diversity. You don't know about the many alleles for intelligence bud. I wouldn't mind less genetic diversity if that kept the tards out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:10:42 2011 No.3255458 >>3255440 And the question is whether or not that behaviour was caused by genetics, and whether or not such a program would damage the gene pool through homogeneity. Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:12:42 2011 No.3255462 >>3255433 excellent at manipulating others Oh come on. Only social retards dislike "socially manipulating others" it makes women sleep with ya bud. I bet you think business majors are douches, huh bud

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:12:42 2011 No.3255464 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 >>3255442 so much this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:13:42 2011 No.3255465 >>3255458 >>3255449 Wow, looks like two people here can't even muster up caring about their daughters and not wanting them to marry up. Yep. Sure winners here

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:17:42 2011 No.3255472 >>3255465 >caring Only if you define caring as being an overbearing asshole. Guess what? If you really cared you would let your children live their lives as they see fit, because it's THEIR life, NOT your life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:17:42 2011 No.3255473 >>3255465 That, or the Redneck is of good psychical health but just brought up in a poor area. Whilst the great Harvard man has a genetic disease which has him wheelchair bound.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:18:42 2011 No.3255477

>>3255453

Bravo. you've gone from setting up strawmen to making personal, and false insinuations that have nothing to do with this argument. Now let me begin to the final move.

You say that people are emotionally charged on the issue of Eugenics, and that this is why it hasn't been done. A logical inference from this would be that emotionally charged arguments are the bane of scientific progress, which is correct.

Having very easily provoked you, you have, for the most part, abandoned logic in favour of responding to my personal attacks.

>hurr durr education stupid
>Let me guess <Unnecessary attack here>

I'd like to congratulate you on displaying the very trait that you believe is holding science back, by failing to recognize our mutual hypocrisy. I'll see you at the clinic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:18:42 2011 No.3255480 >>3255440 If the Harvard man was anything like the pro-eugenics people in this thread and the redneck was a kind, decent person I would choose the latter in a heartbeat.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:19:42 2011 No.3255484

>>3255453

OP, it is noteworthy that out of the many driven and forward-thinking intellectuals alive today, you have assumed that a responsiblilty of solving this great dilemma falls upon you. I hate to resort to an ad hominem, but I'm afraid that this thread smacks of narcissism to me.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:22:42 2011 No.3255494

>>3255473
>>3255472

First guy. Wow, real winner man. I bet you believe that everyone gets a happy ending, santa clause is real, and its not a good idea to spank kids when they act like fucktards

second guy. Sure bud. I want you to look into your loving daughters eyes when she brings home a college dropout redneck, and informs you that she broke up with her wealthy harvard husband to go with him

wow. I am shocked by the foolishness in this thread

For the record, I believe the technological singularity will occur before the current dysgenic breeding has any significant ill effects.

Plus, the fact that thanks to the college system, and ranking by sat and gpa scores and extra curricular (intelligence and mental stability and charisma) The good gene population has a better chance now of hooking up and breeding than ever before, creating a large chasm between the good and bad gene population.

Do you really believe that nobel lauretes are not more worthy of breeding than ghetto criminals?

If so, then what about applied to a smaller scale. Mit graduates vs community college kids.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:24:42 2011 No.3255499 >>3255477 Again, you do not see the irony in your position. By believing that what I am proposing is negative, than hoping to see me there to eliminate those who believe like me, you are contradicting those who believe eugenics does little good.

>>	Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Jun 20 07:24:42 2011 No.3255500 File: 30 KB, 320x240, bravestarr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3255494 >>For the record, I believe the technological singularity will occur

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:27:42 2011 No.3255505

>>3255494
You are very naive.
If she dumps her Harvard boyfriend it's probably because he's an asshole. And if you force her to she spend her life with a prick like him she'll be miserable and probably end up killing herself.
No "genetically-superior" children for you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:28:42 2011 No.3255510 >>3255499 >See you at the clinic No, that last bit was just sarcasm. Neither of us fit your criteria of who should be left fertile, hence the >>I'll see you at the clinic. That was the irony.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:29:42 2011 No.3255522 >>3255494 You are so focused on "good" colleges that it's laughable. The only difference between a local university student and a Harvard student is the size of their parent's wallets.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:29:42 2011 No.3255524 >>3255505 If my daughter dumped a man of such high social status, and did not go after a kinder man of similar social statues, than she deserved death.I would kill her myself. So I wouldn't care if I didn't have kids, thank you

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:31:42 2011 No.3255532

>>3255522
No its not.

Many individuals with perfect SAT scores get rejected from princeton, while getting a full ride to the state college.

For most people, who cares much about a college education anyways? The true function of college is segregating the future upper and lower classes so the women know who to breed with,

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:32:42 2011 No.3255536 >>3255510 Maybe you don't But I qualify for the top 1 percent of Sat scores, I am getting all A's, and I am on both the varsity track and wrestling teams. Not everyone who is interested in science can't go to the gym, boy

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:33:42 2011 No.3255542 >>3255536 >He thinks SAT score matter giggles

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:34:42 2011 No.3255545

>>3255524

This can't be the OP. No way. I JUST went over how his emotional nature disqualified him from the world he's envisioned, and now he's advocating selfish, hot blooded murder.

Has it occurred to you that your actions, yours alone, would cause more socio-economic disruption than any number of retarded babies your idiot daughter shits out?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:35:42 2011 No.3255551 >>3255545 It is OP. refer to >>3255442 for an explanation

>>	Marshmellow kisses Mon Jun 20 07:37:42 2011 No.3255564 >>3255551 Funny bro, considering how I have had 3 gf's so far. No, I didn't love them. It was fun though

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:37:42 2011 No.3255570 File: 155 KB, 640x772, awesome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3255551

>>	OP Mon Jun 20 07:38:42 2011 No.3255574 >>3255564 whoops, tag from another thread As for the other guy. How can you not convince yourself that some are not worthy of breeding?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:38:42 2011 No.3255575 >>3255564 suuuuuuuuure you did ;) I believe you completely. laughingwhores.jpg

>>	OP Mon Jun 20 07:39:42 2011 No.3255579 >>3255545 What? A wife crying? Hopefully, her other children would not make the same mistake. If not murder, a disowing would threaten them

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:48:42 2011 No.3255616

>>3255579

This is disgusting. You're not even wholly human anymore. Your entire belief system has degenerated into a hateful, elitist mess. You have no comprehension as to the why of human civilization, and your definition of it has been simplified by your predatory anger and your childish narcissism.

Tell me, in your own words, why humans congregate together. Better yet, explain how the Freud you still consider yourself qualified to live in the world you're bullshitting up when...

A) Your model will allow sociopaths to slip through the net, an issue that you still haven't addressed.

B) Your response to everything, from this thread to the porposed scenario has universally been violent and aggressive, traits that you have already implied to be problematic for human progress.

All morality is relative to you. The entire world spins on your axis. You've been arbitrarily deciding what's right and what's wrong, with your own feelings as the guideline, rather than any consistent principle. You're a hypocritical disgrace to the physical constants that gave you life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:51:42 2011 No.3255621 >>3255616 Oh, and I haven't proposed that you be sterilized, because your hopelessness is not genetic.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:54:42 2011 No.3255629

Eugenics suppress allele diversity.
Even regular breeding that's been performed since millenia on dogs and common animals give them great flaws.
Breeding is still superior to genetic engineering because we're still unable to associate all phenotypes (for example behaviours) to alleles.
Yet most breeds of dogs have some kind of flaw like high tendency to depression, aggressiveness or neurasthenia.

We're unable to tell if a repetition of sequences that make you more fit (intelligent or attractive or whatever) in the current environment won't make you a target of some future pathogen.

So sterilize yourself if you want to, but don't force your silly ideology on worthwhile genomes.

OP Mon Jun 20 07:54:42 2011 No.3255632

>>3255616
Murder is not always a negative. For instance, what about murdering a man in self defense, or killing a stray dog?

It is similar to do that with those of unfit genetic quality, because killing them is similar to killing a possibly viscous stray dog, except through a longer time frame.

As for sociopaths. Have you ever been to, or visited an elite school? Even though some of the people there may not care about you at all, they are all very polite, and you enjoy their witty company. How does selecting for intelligence by standardized tests, gpa, and EC select for sociopaths?

OP Mon Jun 20 07:56:42 2011 No.3255640

>>3255616
Feelings?

I have recieved an 800 on the biology and math portions of the sat, 5's on the stats, calculus, and bio and chem of the ap tests, and I have been reading the words of intelligence scientists on this topic. I would suggest you look up Wikipedia, type in genetics, then read the works of the original proponents of it. Only then will you believe that I what I believe is not influenced by feelings

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:58:42 2011 No.3255648 >>3255632 >standardized tests, gpa, and EC Lol. They are not indicators of intelligence in the slightest. A student with a GPA of 1.0 is only a bottle of adderall away from a GPA of 4.0

>>	OP Mon Jun 20 07:59:42 2011 No.3255650 >>3255640 eugenics. not eugenics. Silly mix up. My bad

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 07:59:42 2011 No.3255651 Eugenics does work, just pay people money to get sterilized. All overpopulation problems will be solved. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11545519

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:01:42 2011 No.3255654

>>3255621

Look at me i'm 15, i think i'm going against the consensus because i'm proposing something radical and no one can stop me.

Why can't the creators of these sorts of threads be permabanned?

it always turns out to be a pretentious 15 year old faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:01:42 2011 No.3255658 >>3255651 Don't give me that shit. If anything we need more population, not less.

OP Mon Jun 20 08:01:42 2011 No.3255659

>>3255648

Are you in AP classes?If so, do you also have friends in basic or average classes?

Then you have surely noticed the more aggressive behaviors of the lower crowd, and your consistently higher test scores. You can already detect who has the inferior genes in elementary school

>>	OP Mon Jun 20 08:03:42 2011 No.3255667 >>3255654 Always? Since this is an anon image-board, how do you know? What if I am a graduate student trolling in my spare time? What if i believe nothing I am arguing? What If my opinions are actually more extreme than what I am saying?

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:07:42 2011 No.3255675

>>3255632

Before continuing, I need to correct myself.

"Psychopath" is what I meant to say. Does this change the nature of this argument?

>>3255654

Read the whole thread you idiot. Every time somebody expressed hatred for him, he would imply that we secretly agreed that he needed to be filtered out, thus proving his point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:09:42 2011 No.3255678 OP IS A FAG REPORTED AND EMAILED MISSINGO YOU FUCKING ROODYPOO

>>	OP Mon Jun 20 08:09:42 2011 No.3255679 >>3255650 gaa, silly me. It is late, after all

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:10:42 2011 No.3255681 File: 50 KB, 420x420, fuck thisthread.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3255667

>>	OP Mon Jun 20 08:10:42 2011 No.3255683 >>3255675 Not much.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:12:42 2011 No.3255687 >>3255374 >socialism would work i know it's off topic and probably a troll but i just can't let this go. socialism does work dumbass

>>	Sheikah !NKCqu160yw Mon Jun 20 08:13:42 2011 No.3255690 >>3255667 And there's the troll card. Super great thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:16:42 2011 No.3255700 >>3255658 more population? what the fuck made you think that?

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:18:42 2011 No.3255706

>>3255683

Excellent.

It's eHow, but it'll do.

http://www.ehow.com/list_7441177_difference-between-sociopath-psychopath.html

Someone like this has every capacity to insinuate themselves into this new civilization you're talking about. You can't just filter for intelligence.

The socialites whose company you enjoyed may not always be the upstanding gents you think they are. I don't mean to imply that thhey're psychopaths, they may mean well, but have you considered the possibility that they have other personal flaws that might disqualify them from the model for ideal human? Filtering exclusively for intelligence (and by your implication, social status) will cause a great imbalance in the human lifestyle and psyche.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:19:42 2011 No.3255710 >>3255632 >what about murdering a man in self defense that's called killing. murder is killing someone without just cause and with pre planning. killing isn't always bad, murder is. well... unless crows are involved.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:21:42 2011 No.3255716 File: 20 KB, 321x267, coolface_207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3255710 Whatever do you mean? Killing is killing no matter who does it.

OP Mon Jun 20 08:27:42 2011 No.3255732

>>3255706

I am working with averages here. Improving the average humans intelligence, while culling off the undesirable traits(when noticed) would on average improve the typical human. Undesirables would still be there, but in lower percentages.

As more people are intelligent, and there are more geniuses, crime fighting developments such as brain scanning lie detectors would be more likely to be produced. Numerous social defects would be less likely(such as drug addiction) due to realizing the potential negative effects, and the larger understanding of genetic predisposition would improve future life standing.

OP Mon Jun 20 08:30:42 2011 No.3255742

Oh well. Its been a nice thread, but it is time for sleep.

You guys really need to separate the moral argument of "are these ruthless steps worth the possible outcomes"
vs the simple argument of natural selection.

As for the "reduce genetic diversity" crowd. Come on. If the main trait being selected for is intelligence, there are still millions of genes not being selected for. A subset of those genes becoming more homogenous throughout the population is still a small percentage of the overall genome.

Night gents.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:38:42 2011 No.3255765
File: 60 KB, 256x289, rage.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3255732

Alright, let's get serious.

Good logic there, I will admit. But there's one problem. how will it be pulled off? First, you would need to convince most of the world that a significant minority needs to have their civil rights revoked, rights that Western children are taught to hold sacred above all things as a national symbol. It would be a terrible shame if highly intelligence members of government were elected and they squandered their power by getting themselves impeached and/or burned in the streets by angry protestors. By the time you actually convinced everybody that this needs to be done, a realization ought to have set in;

"Holy shit, we just convinced public opinion, which has historically been emotional and misinformed, to go against everything they've been taught to support some extremist, idealistic notion! perhaps they're not as stupid as we thought."

And then you could probably try less extreme routs before resorting to this sort of scheme. I'm sure any remaining opponents would appreciate it.

Caligvla !gnHPjDxxTY Mon Jun 20 08:39:42 2011 No.3255771

>>3255706
Going off this, as the product of generations of classical eugenics, ie aristocratic "good breeding", I can tell you that although I'm tall, thin, smart and relatively good looking, I also have minor skeletal deformities (a few fused vertebra, etc, nothing obvious) and a bit of mental instability

People realized the problems with inbreeding around the time the first Hapsburg started drooling on himself

>>3255732
To be honest, "geniuses" often have mental problems. Bipolar and autism spectrums are the most common, but other anomalies exist as well. It's tough to determine the point between "thinking outside the box" and "fucking loon" empirically

Also, the most educated, most intelligent people are more likely than the average person to turn to drugs and alcohol. Inquisitiveness? The moral relativism, fatalism, even nihilism, that leads many smart people to do stupid things just because they don't care about society's proscriptions? Many potential reasons

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:40:42 2011 No.3255775

While I dont think eugenics would be very successful (except sterilizing people with serious inheritable genetic conditions, that is our moral duty), I would support some social darwinist population control program, so that the poor, criminals etc. have limited number of children (similar to Chinese policy).

This would help to assure that only people materially and mentally ready can raise kids.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:41:42 2011 No.3255779 >>3255742 He left when the party started! Now I regret wasting my time trying to make him eat his own words. No, no I actually don't.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:42:42 2011 No.3255781

Minimal eugenics, ie, offering an incentive for those with the least desirable traits to abstain from breeding. This has the problem of being very slow and requiring draconian methods to enforce to a level where it would have any small effect. I don't have a problem with this per se, but like I say, it's effectiveness is proportional to how far reaching and oppressive you are willing to go.

Maximal eugenics, ie, allowing only those with the most desirable traits to breed. This has all the problems we see with animal husbandry. Meaning, the unintended breeding of undesirable traits because the organisers don't know what the fuck they are doing. In dogs, heart problems are common for the very large ones. This is because when we bred for size, we had no idea we weren't breeding for heart strength, and so we bred badly. Who knows what the equivalent could be in human breeding?

And in any case, the criteria would necessarily be determined from a central authority, who will inevitably select for things that would not have been successful without intervention. So it will be arbitrary and compulsive, pretty much by definition.

No, eugenics takes a long time to implement and will almost always be either ineffective or counter-productive, and it is morally abhorrent far before it becomes effective.

However, genetic engineering is fine. So long as no central body decides what alterations you can and can't get, people will naturally select the best ones, for whatever aesthetic or practical reasons. And every generation will be more effective and cheaper than the last, and any mistakes can be corrected either in a single generation, or even in a few months.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 08:44:42 2011 No.3255787
File: 34 KB, 512x384, wathasscience.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3255742
>the main trait being selected for is intelligence
But we can only measure a small spectrum of intelligece, and very poorly at that. An IQ test only tests for logical intelligence, and the puzzle nature of the test means it's possible to get a better score with practice. Also, regardless of your genes, if you have an understimulating environment during your formative years, you will most likely not become intelligent. Until we know exactly what we should be selecting for, the only thing that makes sense is to select against genetic disease, since that's less ambiguous.

Anonymous of Hong Kong !uLXMZ.ToRo Mon Jun 20 08:52:42 2011 No.3255801

Says who? Abortion is extremely common in mainland China, it's even advertised on TV like some product

With the one-child policy, any unhealthy fetus with abnormality is likely terminated by choice so the mom can have a chance to have a healthy kid

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 09:01:42 2011 No.3255820 >>3255440 >would you rather a redneck or a medical student >yes You have failed basic English, report to the sterilisation clinic.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 09:06:42 2011 No.3255836

Hey OP !

What makes you think you're good for the next generation? The problem is that there would have to be someone to judge who gets to move on and who doesn't and that someone is a human and that human is emotional and etcetc...
It's basically just enforcing ones own views on society and life.

Also, if you look at the universe in it's majority and if you look at life in it's pure form as it is basically a coincidence you can see that there is no "superhuman future". We just live here, that's it.

>>	it rhymes with rage Mon Jun 20 09:08:42 2011 No.3255843 File: 77 KB, 250x359, Hawking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] fuck you OP, and fuck anyone who thinks like you. Or not. hahahaha.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 09:19:42 2011 No.3255880 neil de grasse tyson is the ideal human being. A modest, intelligent, and approachable man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 09:38:42 2011 No.3255930 File: 26 KB, 600x450, happy_negro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3255880 He also a bruttha

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 10:53:42 2011 No.3256087 >>3255930 irrelevant, it's the human that counts.

Anonymous Mon Jun 20 11:44:42 2011 No.3256213

>>3255371
OP natural selection has nothing to do with eugenics

In the world of genetics good and bad traits are never clear cut. Intelligence is not defined simply as attained by genetic factors and whos to say that breeding 2 people of high intelligence wont produce some offspring with some form of mental retardation.

Eugenics is best used to remove unwanted traits from a population thus why people classed as morons were castrated all those years ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 11:46:42 2011 No.3256217 Positive eugenics? SURE!!! Negative Eugenics? lolno

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 12:46:42 2011 No.3256372 >Threshhold the series >Threshhold the episode Eugenics is oldschool OP

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 12:58:42 2011 No.3256397 I <span class="math">\mathbb{LOVE}[/spoiler] eugenics!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 13:11:42 2011 No.3256415 >>3255371 >guaranteed LOL, no.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 13:24:42 2011 No.3256453 We're going to start using artificial selection at some point. Just sequencing the genomes of a shitload of test-tube babies and throwing out all but the best.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 20 13:28:42 2011 No.3256464 It's a wasted effort as biological evolution is in the process of being replaced by self replicating machines. Eugenics is so passe. Get with the times.

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 ]