[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 139 KB, 756x596, 10229.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3666233 [Reply] [Original]

Lets discuss Eugenics.

I am 100% with that concept, as long as there will be no hate towards "inferior people".

Its only beneficial. So name your ideas for a program that would be morally justifiable and beneficial to all, except bad genes.

I support the idea that every human being has the right to have children, but we would have to make a global law, which enforces the majority of people to have only 1 child.

So why arent we creating a master race of tall, handsome and intelligent people?

>> No.3666241

Because we are really bad at predicting the challenges our descendants will face and cannot fathom the difference between a good gene and a bad gene beyond the scope of a single afflicted generation.

/thread

>> No.3666246

>>3666233
There is no superior genotype. There is only best adapted to the environment. How come no one here seems to understand such a simple fucking concept?

>> No.3666248

>as long as there will be no hate towards "inferior people".
There's your problem. Also, the metric for "inferior" will be distorted and abused.

>> No.3666247

go away op

>> No.3666251

>>3666246
I stand corrected. At least one of you got it right: >3666241

>> No.3666254

Because intellect has no proven link to genetics at all, so any efforts to employ genetics would likely have unintended consequences, in addition to being highly unethical?

>> No.3666256

Why limit reproduction when there's somatic genetic engineering?

>> No.3666262

>>3666247

I will if you explain why.

>> No.3666263

>>3666233he majority of people to have only 1 child.

You do know that it requires the average woman to have 2.3 children to maintain population size and a shrinking population size can devastate an economy as a significant portion of the population end up too old to work correct?

I do support incentivised voluntary eugenics. Paying $300 to anyone with sufficient drug-addiction, criminal record, or low enough IQ as to be unemployable to get surgically sterilized can only yield benefits for the next generation.

>> No.3666264

Realistically? What Singapore did. Give parents with degrees priority in government services and tax benefits.

>> No.3666266

>>3666263
>Paying $300 to anyone with sufficient drug-addiction, criminal record, or low enough IQ as to be unemployable to get surgically sterilized can only yield benefits for the next generation.
There's no need to bother with the qualifications. Anyone who will take $300 for being sterilized should be.

>> No.3666270

>>3666262

see

>>3666233
>>3666246
>>3666254

>> No.3666273

>>3666266

lol good one

>> No.3666275
File: 90 KB, 935x1218, Eugenicsisbad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Aren't you glad we made this, /sci/?

>> No.3666277

>>3666254Because intellect has no proven link to genetics at all,

Actually intelligence has proven to be highly heritable.

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

If you think there's no genetic link to intelligence and environment is the only important factor I challenge you to teach calculus to a Bonobo.

>> No.3666280

>>3666275
I already told you why this is wrong. It is as pseudoscientific as the average /sci/ thread on eugenics. Cut it with the pseudoscience, you are NOT helping.

>> No.3666287

>>3666270

That doesnt make sense, youre just mad because your parents suck, and you cant deal with the fact that you suck as well.

>> No.3666289

>>3666280
>I already told you why this is wrong.
Not that guy, but where?

I read it, and generally agree with the arguments. Limiting our biodiversity will cause more problems.

However, I'm all for genetic engineering.

>> No.3666291

>>3666275
Your chart doesn't make the distinction between absolute forced eugenics and eugenics as selective pressure. If eugenics is treated as an incentive, it will occur gradually enough to incorporate genetic diversity into the population while selecting out undesirable traits. The only reason we should implement it is that the selective pressure currently on humanity is favoring traits incapable of sustaining civilization.

>> No.3666306

>>3666291
>The only reason we should implement it is that the selective pressure currently on humanity is favoring traits incapable of sustaining civilization.
Not that guy, but technological evolution is many orders of magnitude faster. We'll be directly reengineering the genome before any supposed dysgenic effects make a significant difference. The threat to societal stability, not to mention the increased susceptibility to disease, pose a threat to that technological progress.

Genetic evolution is already of less importance than memetic evolution, and soon the normal mode of genetic inheritance will be replaced entirely.

>> No.3666315

>>3666289
In another thread. Briefly,

>limits gene pool
Not necessarily true

>retarded mouse scenario
Geneticists are not retarded, we're not gonna just eliminate dubiously negative traits with significant positive effects or poorly studied traits, the example is ridiculous.

>dogs
Nobody cared if dogs would have bad hips, it was not scientifically made, livestock was selectively bred too and achieved goals wonderfully.

>in general
This attacks an over simplified version of the kind of eugenics an ignorant nazi may have proposed, missing the point.

>> No.3666320

>>3666287

>that doesn't make sense

Irony

>> No.3666323

>>3666291
>eugenics as selective pressure

Maybe we're talking about different eugenics here, but I was pretty certain that eugenics was the promotion of specific beneficial traits/extinction of specific harmful traits, where beneficial and harmful are defined by people.
OP said,
>why arent we creating a master race of tall, handsome and intelligent people?
This would promote the genes which control for "tallness" "handsomeness" and "intelligence" to the exclusion of others, if you want to see a result that isn't awash in the noise from genetic drift.

>>3666280
>biology
>a pseudoscience
Not even close.

>> No.3666324

>>3666233

Don't be stupid OP, cause nature isn't. If it wanted for the whole human race to be smart, tall and handsome we would be if it would benefit us.
The race needs diversity, from the race point of view as a whole, the low iq mindless drones are as important as the guy on top of the pyramid.
One with out the other cannot exist, deal with it.

>> No.3666330

>>3666306We'll be directly reengineering the genome before any supposed dysgenic effects make a significant difference

If you actually believe the ignorant masses will allow the genetic engineering of humans you are probably still in middle school.

>> No.3666349

>>3666315
>Geneticists are not retarded, we're not gonna just eliminate dubiously negative traits with significant positive effects or poorly studied traits, the example is ridiculous.
Law of unintended consequences.

We knew about sicle-cell anemia before we knew that possessing the gene gave you resistance to malaria. What other apparently negative traits have hidden benefits?

>> No.3666356

No specific superior genome. Only most adaptable. 100% of the population being genetically similar is very bad. gtfo. now.

>> No.3666359

>>3666315
And I already told you why /you/ were wrong.

>limits the gene pool
Absolutely true. If you get rid of genes, you are getting rid of genes that you try to get rid of AND GENES THAT YOU MAY NOT BE TRYING TO GET RID OF which are in linkage with the undesired genes. Do you understand the concept of linkage? I believe the chart explained that, but maybe you only looked at the big points.

>Geneticists are not retarded, we're not gonna just eliminate dubiously negative traits with significant positive effects or poorly studied traits, the example is ridiculous.
So, you think we understand 100% of the effect of the interactions between all genes, and the effect of the interactions between all genes and all possible environmental factors? And you think that this understanding comes gene-by-gene and that there are not genome-wide interactions between specific locations?

>Nobody cared if dogs would have bad hips, it was not scientifically made, livestock was selectively bred too and achieved goals wonderfully.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/facts/93-007.htm#GENETIC

>This attacks an over simplified version of the kind of eugenics an ignorant nazi may have proposed, missing the point.

Of course the in general is going to simplify the fucking point. That is why it is in general.

>> No.3666367

>>3666330
>If you actually believe the ignorant masses will allow the genetic engineering of humans you are probably still in middle school.
It won't be widespread right away. But you're also not being realistic if you think it will be forcibly banned.

It will start with screening embryos for undesired defects. Hell, screening for gender is already happening extensively in China and India. Selectively aborting Down's Syndrome embryos, etc. Then selecting for positive traits, once their source is understood, such as height or resistance to diabetes. Full reengineering won't happen for a while.

And these techniques may not be used by the majority. But they WILL be used by a significant minority.

>> No.3666369

>>3666324 If it wanted for the whole human race to be smart, tall and handsome we would be if it would benefit us.
The race needs diversity, from the race point of view as a whole, the low iq mindless drones are as important as the guy on top of the pyramid.
One with out the other cannot exist, deal with it.


That's not how evolution works and you should know that. Here is an example to help your confusion:

If a species produced 80% female offspring and 20% male offspring, then it could reproduce more quickly and efficiently in subsequent generations. Why then, do so many species produce a 50/50 mix?

Suppose there was a population that produced 80% female and 20% male offspring. If an individual had a mutation that caused it to produce 80% male offspring instead, then its own offspring would be more likely to reproduce because of the surplus of females. The result is that a balance is usually reached around 50/50 despite it not being the best thing for the species as a whole.

Evolution does not care about how the species fares as a whole until extinction crops up. Until then, only the benefit of the individual is selected for. In theory Eugenics replaces the goals of the individual with the goals of the group (for better or worse). It's essentially converting individual goals into collective goals which could be a very good thing or a very bad thing depending on how intelligent and ethical the people setting the goals are.

>> No.3666383

>>3666359getting rid of genes that you try to get rid of AND GENES THAT YOU MAY NOT BE TRYING TO GET RID OF

Oh yes, because every time nature applies selective pressure on a species the species become completely genetically homogenous. Be realistic here, eugenics will never be that thorough.

>> No.3666389

>>3666369
Also in your example, effective population size is greatest when there is a 50/50 ratio of male to female.

>Evolution does not care about how the species fares as a whole until extinction crops up.
You're right that evolution 'does not care' because it is not an entity with desire/an end goal, but natural selection acts on populations. Natural selection does not act on individuals.
http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/bio%20101/bio%20101%20lectures/Natur
al%20Selection/natural.htm

>> No.3666393

>>3666359
>>3666349
>argument about gene pool stability
You are ignorant children clueless about the facts of the issue. I appreciate this is a concern in general, but not with the current human population, not with eugenics as proposed.

Namedropping keywords from bio101 isn't gonna help, you have to know what they mean, too.

>Law of unintended consequences
A, no such laws, B it is not difficult to say when we know for sure what a gene does and when we do not.

>livestock
Were not bred to have no genetic abnormalities, they were bred to give good milk, meat and wool. Surprise! They do these things!

>that last bit of bullshit
You don't get it do you? YOU ARE ATTACKING A STRAWMAN. STOP. YOU ARE MAKING US, ACTUAL BIOLOGISTS OPPOSED TO EUGENICS, LOOK BAD.

>> No.3666395 [DELETED] 

Turd, the genetical diversity brought us where we are now, it gave birth to the superior white and yellow man, if it didn't we'd still be niggers and hunting food with fragile spears and singing melodies around campfires.

Who knows what the future holds, gold is surrounded by mud and worthles rock, but that's why it's gold, if it was surrounded by other gold it wouldn't be special at all.

>> No.3666418

>>3666393
>B it is not difficult to say when we know for sure what a gene does and when we do not.
You're still implying that genes only have one effect. This is a prime example of how unintended consequences can hurt us.

Didn't you notice the example about sickle-cell anemia? It has beneficial effects too - and if malaria weren't around ATM but about to emerge, we would eliminate the gene without knowing it would protect those who had it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't tinker with the genome. But we should also avoid homogeneity and completely eliminating genes. Which, I admit, probably won't be a problem anyway, as not everyone will be involved in this process.

>> No.3666423

Genetics have small impact in how a person behaves when comparing with enviroment. That's why eugenics are pretty retarded.

>> No.3666421

>>3666233

>Implying eugenics doesn't occur every day.

The smart, tall and handsome mate with the smart tall and handsome, there are not likely to settle to anything lesser than they are.

>> No.3666427

Eugenics is not based on any scientific method. Today, we cannot merely choose two good looking, smart people and say "this kid will become the master race!" because we still do not know how gene selection works completely AND it is retarded to give accurate assumptions on birth which works almost like chance to us.

>> No.3666430

Why is there a sudden influx of race/eugenics/IQ threads? Are we being raided?

>> No.3666428

>>3666393 effective population size is greatest when there is a 50/50 ratio of male to female.

Only in a purely monogamous species. Guess what goes out the window when there is an uneven male/female ratio. One male can fertilize a lot of females.

You're also confusing that evolution acts on a population with group selection which has been demonstrated to be unlikely. Selective pressure occurs mostly at the level of the individual gene, its effects are seen in the next generation's population.

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

>> No.3666438
File: 59 KB, 679x516, 1270263157726.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3666393
>You are ignorant children clueless about the facts of the issue. I appreciate this is a concern in general, but not with the current human population, not with eugenics as proposed. Namedropping keywords from bio101 isn't gonna help, you have to know what they mean, too.
I see we've already degraded into name calling. You're going to have to get specific with me.

>A, no such laws, B it is not difficult to say when we know for sure what a gene does and when we do not.
You missed that guys point entirely. He said WE DID NOT KNOW IT WAS USEFUL until later, long after we found out what it was and what it did.
Also, are you saying that there will never be unintended consequences?

>Were not bred to have no genetic abnormalities, they were bred to give good milk, meat and wool. Surprise! They do these things!
Surprise! Dogs were also bred for specific things, and do those things well. Again, you miss the point. I am not saying that humans bred for X trait wont exhibit X trait. I am saying that humans bred for X trait could exhibit harmful traits from limiting diversity, or could no longer exhibit useful trait Y because that was bred out.

>You don't get it do you? YOU ARE ATTACKING A STRAWMAN. STOP. YOU ARE MAKING US, ACTUAL BIOLOGISTS OPPOSED TO EUGENICS, LOOK BAD.
You don't seem to be opposed to eugenics, though.
If you have suggestions to improve the case then explain them and make them without just saying
"hurr durr, no, this is bio 101 knowledge, so it doesn't apply, and you are a stupid asshat that is ignorant of the situation."

>> No.3666444

>>3666427 we cannot merely choose two good looking, smart people and say "this kid will become the master race!"

On the other hand we can take two stupid drug-addicts and say there is a statistically significant chance that their offspring will be similar.

>> No.3666448

>>3666427

This.

/thread.

>> No.3666450

>>3666418
YES I NOTICE YOU RETARD NOBODY EVER SAID THAT ANEMIA COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE OTHER EFFECTS ARE YOU STUPID

ARE YOU NOT LISTENING? I'M TELLING YOU IF WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE EFFECTS OF A GENE, WE'LL SAY WE DON'T, IF WE KNOW ITS EVERY EFFECT, THEN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO YOUR EUGENICS.

GODDAMN FUCK OFF WITH YOUR HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY ALREADY.

Cruise control because you just don't fucking get it.

>> No.3666458

>>3666438 Dogs were also bred for specific things, and do those things well.

Most proponents of eugenics aren't suggesting breeding FOR certain traits, they really seem to want to limit the reproduction of traits they see as harmful.

>> No.3666478

>>3666428
>Only in a purely monogamous species. Guess what goes out the window when there is an uneven male/female ratio. One male can fertilize a lot of females.

Actually, that is not what this article seems to suggest.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-drift-and-effective-population-size-772523

>> No.3666480

Fascinating.

>> No.3666484

>>3666450
>we can know 100% of what we know and 100% of what we don't know, ever.

Good job, buddy.
Why are you so mad?

>> No.3666487

Undesirable trait X and undesirable trait Y migjt mix well and give use desirable trait Z

Until we know about every gene, eugenics might remove our chancea of godhood.

>> No.3666493

>>3666487

THANK YOU PASCAL!
Jesus christ.
I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that.
Might make another poster, just so I can include that specific example.

>> No.3666521

>>3666493
>>3666487

obvious samefag is obvious

>> No.3666524

Who knows what the future holds, gold is surrounded by mud and worthles rock, but that's why it's gold, if it was surrounded by other gold it wouldn't be special at all.

>> No.3666530

>>3666521

>someone thought I was pascal
While that is a lovely compliment, with the frequency that pascal posts on here, I don't think he ever takes off his name or trip.

>> No.3666540

>>3666484
Well guess what faggot, by that logic we can't know 100% that eugenics is wrong. Check fucking mate.

>> No.3666542

Give every one a ticket entitling them to one child.

Reward people in the top 30% income bracket with an extra ticket.

Revoke criminals tickets for X amount of years, so if you committed a crime that got you arrested for 6 months, you aren't able to have kids for, say, 2 years. It will be only a minor annoyance to people who have committed a crime, but it would completely stop repeat offenders from breeding.

Legalize polygamy

Reward top university with tickets that they can award to their top students.

Anyone on welfare must revoke all tickets for the duration that they are on welfare.

People working at certain ranks in government jobs can be awarded tickets.
Under this program:
>Poor people and criminals have a plummeting reproduction rate.

>Middle class normal people have a normal rate of reproduction, that tips into the negative.

>Upper class, high ranking government officers, intellectuals ect. Have positive reproduction rate.

No one is classified as "weak" or "strong", its used as a reward system for contributing members of society

The wealth is redistributed to the majority.

Breeding becomes competitive,thus encouraging evolution.
Whats wrong with this?

>> No.3666564

>>3666540
0/10

All he's saying is that your argument rests on perfectly understanding whether a gene might have a hidden benefit, or definitely doesn't. This basically requires perfect knowledge.

>> No.3666593

>>3666542

>implying this isn't how economics work
>implying that the rich aren't also the genetically best

there is no reason for tickets, when the economic systems we live in do exactly what you say, without provoking rage by the inferior mass

>> No.3666596

>>3666564
0/10 you are implying I am a very awful troll and yet replying to me anyway

>> No.3666618

I agree, pascal is a bro

>> No.3666702

>>3666593there is no reason for tickets, when the economic systems we live in do exactly what you say, without provoking rage by the inferior mass

Except that people are allowed to spit defective children into foster care indefinitely. Something like http://projectprevention.org needs to be mandated.

>> No.3666727

>>3666241
>>3666241

That is such fail

Height can be not useful because of calorie intake. Shorter people need less calories to be successful. Given that girls like taller guys, that tradeoff is one of the main reasons that all humans are not giants.

Handsome? Well, a very masculine fighter might father girls that are more masculine than other girls, making her not as attractive as other girls. So, there may be tradeoffs to that.

As for intelligence? More brains take more calories, but offer so many advantages (such as possibly transcending humanity) that why would anyone not select for them?

So, if you want to ensure humanity survival, select for a intelligence, a strong immune system, a calorie efficient and hardy fertile people

>> No.3666728
File: 112 KB, 863x792, 1272702958950.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3666564
Thanks for the support while I went to go get a sandwich.

But I must agree, responding to a troll post warrants at least a 1, and responding seriously, rates a 3/10 in most cases.
Pic related. It's this part of the conversation.

>> No.3666732

>>3666618
Checking to see if your tripcode was also notpascal...

>> No.3666738

>>3666727 More brains take more calories, but offer so many advantages (such as possibly transcending humanity) that why would anyone not select for them?

Higher intelligence is correlated with less religiosity which results in fewer religious restrictions on contraception. Higher intelligence also means better retention of sexual education which means more effective use of contraception.

Nature can select against intelligence for reasons that have nothing to do with caloric intake.

>> No.3666744

because liberals are scared being better = wiping out the inferior.

that's why they're so scared of science proving that whites are innately smarter and less violent than blacks. i already know it's a fact but i don't go around lynching them.

god damn.

>> No.3666750

>>3666744
You're right, no one wants to lynch blacks because they're intellectually inferior. We want to lynch blacks because they're violent rapists.

>> No.3666756

>>3666750

don't get me wrong. i want blacks to either be forced out of our society, or to somehow make it clear that this is a white society and we're not going to tolerate them raping and killing our people just because they choose to remain in a place full of people smarter and better than they are.

"hurr duh man keeping us down1!!1!" then go back to africa you fucking twat, and stop cutting off the penis and breasts of our people.

>> No.3666784

>>3666254
>Because intellect has no proven link to genetics
>at all

i mean, i guess you could say it's not 100% certain. but nothing is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1987.tb00207.x/abstract

>> No.3667776

>>3666750
>>3666756
Why don't you get rid of violent rapists then?

What the hell is wrong with you?

>> No.3667803

I think we can easily assume that none of us has figured out what we are here for. Why we exist, why the world is so imperfect, who we are, where we come from, where we go.

But it's the differencies that make life interesting. I don't want to live on a planet with superefficient perfectly working goodlooking people.

No single human should be allowed to think of a concept how humans on earth should be. We already are and we should deal with that.

There must be a sollution that doesn't erase our individuality

>> No.3667825

>>3667803
>>3667776

>bumping a thread from 4 hours ago
>expect responses from the offenders.

Good job.

>> No.3668027

Eugenics is flawed in the fact that all traits, whether we see them as inferior or superior, play an important role in evolution. What happens if tall, handsome, intelligent people cannot survive in a specific environment? Then eugenics would have screwed the human race.

Humanity can't be a mono-culture. We would die out if there was a sudden change in the environment.

>> No.3668043

>>3668027
/thread and every eugenics thread, but I know there will be one tomorrow anyway, and the day after and after that...(probably multiple)

never change /sci/