The Scientifically Ideal State

[Anonymous No.3744927]

ALL SPERM OR EGGS MUST BE COLLECTED AND FROZEN, UNDER PENALTY OF ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED COMA
180+ IQ

WE'LL PAY YOU PER BIOLOGICAL CHILD TIER
150 - 179 IQ

TWO CHILDREN PER COUPLE
140 - 149 IQ

ONE CHILD PER COUPLE
105 - 139 IQ

STERILIZATION TIER
90 - 104 IQ
People with IQs in this range can still adopt excess children of higher IQ parentage.

SUB-HUMAN TIER
<89 IQ
This category cannot even adopt children. They should not only be sterilized, but also labelled as risks upon society for close watch by law enforcement and mental health practitioners. People falling into this category should be quarantined in dedicated islands, cities, or isolated communities so as to avoid disrupting the higher IQ social order.

[Anonymous No.3744932]

>>3744927
I was ok with this until I noticed your claim of
>Scientifically Ideal
Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.3744934]

>implying we don't need huge amounts of stupid people to work all the shitty jobs that smart people don't want to do

[Anonymous No.3744936]

so what if a 170 IQ couple has a baby with teh downs, do they still get paid?

[Hopeless Necromantic No.3744938]

Pic related.
Furthermore, IQ only measures how well you do on an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.3744943]

my great grandma help made the iq,
but i cant score above 180

consider this.
>Utopian society/
Ultimate Dictatorship ruled by facists who create the master race.

[Anonymous No.3744946]

that's a cool wet dream, aspie.

[Anonymous No.3744949]

>people still think IQ measures anything more than how good of a university professor you'll be
>Marilyn vos Savant has one of the highest IQs and doesn't believe hyperbolic geometry is valid
>she's an author
>lol

[Anonymous No.3744959]

>>3744936
>not altering the fetus genetics,
>2011

[Anonymous No.3744962]

>>3744938
Testing for blood pressure only measures how well you do on a blood pressure test.

Average IQ meter is at max. Dispatching anti-buttdevastation squad immediately.

[Anonymous No.3744963]

I just want to get this straight. You're for sterilizing over half the population? I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just curious if you realized what you were proposing.

[Anonymous No.3744967]

>>3744934
Robots. Of course that sounds unrealistic now because the worldwide gene pool has a IQs limited by natural selection. We need to build on nature by adding artificial selection.

Domesticate cows to improve future human life
>Nobody complains

Domesticate bananas...etc. in order to improve future human life
>Nobody complains

Artificially select humans for intellectual traits in order to improve future human life
>OMG HOW COULD YOU EVEN SUGGEST SUCH A THING? YOU FUCKING NAZI SCUM GO TO HELL!!!!1111

Only when the intelligence of man increases significantly can we do any of the things science fiction authors have dreamed of.

[Anonymous No.3744976]

haha fail
if you just pick sperms with high iq the next genereation will have an iq from 100 its normed :D

[Anonymous No.3744978]

>>3744934
the robots that the alphas invent will do that

[Anonymous No.3744979]

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of low-IQ people that are gifted in something valued by society. Would you deny their services to society?

[Anonymous No.3744981]

>>3744959
>Whole chromosomes being engineered
>2011

[Anonymous No.3744986]

>>3744967
that would be awesome if you were suggesting that genetic modification by parental volition should be legalised. but you're not. you're saying that stupid people aren't allowed children. so of course you're a fascist, ya silly aspie.

[Anonymous No.3745001]

Saging this thread before it turns into the inevitable /stormfront/ rally where scrawny whites and asians try to justify genocide because tyrone and demarcus made fun of them in highschool

[Anonymous No.3745004]

so what's going to happen when 200 IQ becomes the new average? Are we going to start not letting 180's reproduce? Think about the slope man.

[Anonymous No.3745011]

>>3745001
you want to know why i hate mexicans?
it's cuz they beat me up in grade school?
IST THAT ENOUGH? DO YOU UNDERSTND NOW
>mfw someone said that to me irl in hs:
reality

[Anonymous No.3745015]

>Implying that the average IQ isn't 100.
>Implying arrogantly that intelligence is the only important quality.
>Implying that making a scientifically ideal state should take precedence over morals
>Implying that humanity is determined by IQ.
>Implying that this is not a way to make yourself feel better because the only good quality you see in yourself is IQ.
>Implying IQ tests are even the best measurement of intelligence.
>Implying that you really believe in this, considering you are posting it on 4chan.

God damn, go back to /b/.

[Anonymous No.3745017]

>select for intelligence
>unintended consequences due to gene linkage

[Anonymous No.3745030]

ITT: Pseudo intellectual aspie socially and anthropological illiterate troll OP attempts to cynically stomp human rights due to lack of understanding and cognitive bias.

[Anonymous No.3745038]

>>3745030

Define 'intellectual'.

[Anonymous No.3745042]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptjXEbbj1iQ&feature=player_profilepage#t=15s

this is related to this thread's interests

[Anonymous No.3745051]

>>3744927
you forgot:

OP TIER: COMPLETE ANNIHILATION OF ANY DNA FOUND WITH 99% MATCH OF OP.

Reason: Erradicate the Meme that OP IS AFAGGOT

[Anonymous No.3745055]

>>3745011
I bet it's cause you can't learn to speak spanish.

Also, I'm pretty sure you shouldn't judge people based on if they were able to kick your ass or not.

Seem's kinda subjective, particularly if you're whining about it on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.3745062]

>>3744986
Fuck. I had a long response to that but my connection died in between.

TL;DR You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3745071]

>>3745001
>Saging this thread before it turns into the inevitable /stormfront/ rally where scrawny whites and asians try to justify genocide because tyrone and demarcus made fun of them in highschool
>scrawny

Muh dik.

[Anonymous No.3745084]

>>3744927
>ALL SPERM OR EGGS MUST BE COLLECTED AND FROZEN, UNDER PENALTY OF ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED COMA
>ALL SPERM

They'd be required to fap how many times a day?

Also, these seem like pointlessly narrow and rigid categories.

Also, you'd be better off calling this "a theoretically optimal method of reaching a sate which strongly selects for intelligence among it's population". Except it would most likely make people more competitive and better at cheating more than anything else.

[Anonymous No.3745111]

bad idea, bro

pic related

[Anonymous No.3745120]

>>3745111

>Gattaca
>not christian anti-eugenics propaganda

pick one

[Anonymous No.3745138]

Joke's on you OP, IQ is calculated on a bell curve... your average IQ will always be 100.

[Anonymous No.3745155]

>>3745111
>movie
>evidence

Wow, I did not expect this reasoning on /sci/. For shame.

[Anonymous No.3745160]

seeing as IQ is only correlated with heredity at .44 (according to some dubious sources) you might want to consider this:

I have IQ >160, yet all 4 (four) of my siblings by same parents are dumb clucks.

eugenics is wishful thinking and not even close to being science.

[Anonymous No.3745162]

>>3745155
>implying OP provided any evidence for his position.

[Anonymous No.3745173]

We get it, you're an elitist, one-sided, small-minded douchebag.
Stop making this thread.

[Anonymous No.3745174]

>>3745160
>anecdotal evidence
>to be taken seriously at all

Oh wow, what was that? An online test?

[Anonymous No.3745176]

>>3745160
Eugenics is real science, it's just an application of Genomics. Whether you can use it effectively on intelligence is another matter. We use Eugenics on plants an animals all the time, although yes usually the term applies to humans. We will likely start using Eugenics by trying to remove diseases like Down Syndrome from the gene pool. It's a slippery slope from there, and it will be rabidly fought against every step of the way.

[Anonymous No.3745182]

>>3745160
Oh, so I guess we should ignore the millions of species we've domesticated.
Yeah, your single anecdote sure proved all of the entire history of the human race wrong. Gosh, what were we thinking?

[Anonymous No.3745195]

>>3745182
here's what I'm thinking: you try pulling that breeding people shit around me and I will shoot you, burn down your lab and turn your lab monkeys loose, you fucking fascist

[Anonymous No.3745193]

>2011
>people still arguing about eugenics when genetic engineering is just around the corner.
ISHYGDDT
(unless you guys are all talking about "liberal" eugenics)

[Anonymous No.3745197]

>>3745160
I can't even begin with what's wrong with that. Do you really believe that intelligence is not heritable after the tomes of studies suggesting that it is highly heritable?

- Identical twins reared apart studies
- Siblings reared apart studies
- Consistent similarities between parental IQs and their children
- Brain size correlations with IQ
- Specific regions of the brain correlated with IQ
- A fucking GWAS study showing genes to be correlated with intelligence quotients

How much more do you faggots need?

Intelligence is real and heritable. That's a fact. Consequently, eugenics is a viable way to increase the mean intelligence of a population.

[Anonymous No.3745226]

>>3745195
>you try pulling that breeding people shit around me and I will shoot you, burn down your lab and turn your lab monkeys loose, you fucking fascist

Oh! So that's it! You're <span class="math">personally[/spoiler] offended by these ideas, so you ignore all logical arguments in its favor.

Cool story bro.

[Anonymous No.3745229]

>>3745176
Are you trying to conflate artificial selection with eugenics, so that people feel more comfortable about allowing society to reduce diversity among our species?

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.3745233]

>>3745197
>IQ heritable
>Eugenics works
>Diversity reduced
>Heritable dieseases increase...

Good job scientists!

[Anonymous No.3745239]

>>3745233
>selection for IQ
>heritable diseases

Does not compute.

We're not selecting for tall Aryans; we're just selecting for smart people. Another strawman.

[Anonymous No.3745242]

>>3745229
Yes to the first part, no to the second. Eugenics is a form of artificial selection. That's what it is. I'm not trying to make anybody feel more comfortable about anything though.

[Anonymous No.3745257]

>>3745239
if you only "breed" the smart people, then you lower diversity and shrink the gene pool. look at the Amish. Tiny ass gene pool and damn near everyone has some crazy shit up with them.

[Anonymous No.3745261]

>>3745233

>Implying these threads aren't made by /new/fags.

[Anonymous No.3745264]

people are not flowers, corn, dogs or science experiments

the heritability correlation is only .44. Do the math: how many retards do you end up with for every "gifted" child?

in agriculture, unfavored crops are destroyed, dog breeders put down unfavored animals.

what do *you* propose to do with the dregs of your experimental litters?

[Anonymous No.3745269]

>>3745257
>look at the Amish. Tiny ass gene pool and damn near everyone has some crazy shit up with them.

[citation needed]

Also inbreeding != eugenics

[Anonymous No.3745274]

>>3745257
Yes, but with humanity at 7B people, it's not likely that the diversity is going to decrease much at all, if any. From a hypothetical standpoint if you can keep everybody from breeding but who you want, as long as you have a big enough pool of people you want (say, the smart half, the fast have, whatever you are controlling for), then diversity would be fine.

[Anonymous No.3745275]

>ALL SPERM OR EGGS MUST BE COLLECTED AND FROZEN, UNDER PENALTY OF ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED COMA

No! Wheehee! We, you'll never catch! You will pay for your attempt to oppress us!

[Anonymous No.3745276]

i could live with this

[Anonymous No.3745279]

>>3745274
have --->half

I'm getting tired.

[Anonymous No.3745285]

enjoy you shitty dystopia & sage

[Anonymous No.3745304]

>>3745269
Eugenics will lead to inbreeding. If you reduce population diversity, you increase chances of inbreeding every generation afterward.

[Anonymous No.3745314]

>>3745261
>implying scientists wouldn't help eugenicists if it meant they get a noble prize.

If this were just /new/fags i'd ignore it, but theres scientists out there with no ethics who'll start this shit somewhere in the 3rd world, in the name of science.

>I did nazi this coming

[Anonymous No.3745323]

What I dont get is why do governments promote the breeding of lower IQ people(most being lower class)? While the upper IQ people tend not to have as many kids. And when it comes to higher IQ couples why are they choosing adoption of kids from lower IQ families?

I mean if you dont want to have a kid then why not have a surrogate be implanted with your egg and sperm and then have a child that has your genetics.

It just sucks to see so many high IQ couples and people not pass on their genetics. While at the same time people with low IQs spread their genetics like crazy.

We are just promoting the breeding stupidity.

While I am not really into genetics it pains me to see so much high IQ genetics die out when scientists dont marry or dont have kids because they are too involved with their work or they believe a kid would be hinderance on their career.
Why not donate your sperm/eggs and have the people who have lower IQ, when they want to have their 4/5/6 kids use the high IQ sperm and eggs instead of their own.

[Anonymous No.3745328]

>>3745304
>reduce population diversity

>implying eugenics would reduce diversity

It's called selective breeding; i.e. we get to choose what happens. We can monitor genomes and avoid inbreeding depression. Why do you assume that we will have the same eugenics that fucking Hitler envisioned? We will use state-of-the-art genetics technology to make the plan work very efficiently.

Stop strawmanning and making baseless assumptions.

[Anonymous No.3745336]

>>3745304
I think you are mixing up inbreeding with the removal of undesired traits. At the extreme they are similar, yes, but we're not talking about making everybody identical. Random mutations occur as well and as long as you keep the population large enough, inbreeding is not a problem.

[sage No.3745375]

>>3745336
what do you do with your fucking mistakes?

"scientific" my ass

[Anonymous No.3745388]

>>3745336
I guess if not having sex with your cousin is undesirable, you could just move to the south.

[Anonymous No.3745400]

>>3745323
>>3744927

Sometimes women die from getting eggs removed.

They should be rewarded and be given the choice. Imagine if while extracting eggs you accidentally kill a woman with an IQ of 180, when otherwise she would have ended biological aging. It may be worth it, but as the one with the IQ of 180, she knows better.

OP, if you really want what you think you want, you shouldn't tell the people you think are better than you what to do.

[Anonymous No.3745409]

>>3745375
>>3745388
You guys aren't even trying anymore. Peace.

[Anonymous No.3745411]

>>3745375

You give them a good life, make sure they don't hurt people and don't let them make more of themselves, hypothetically.

[Anonymous No.3745431]

TRUE FAX

iq is a meaningless metric unless you are using it to prove the superiority of one race in which case it is the only metric

[Anonymous No.3745449]

>>3745409
Are we suppose to try?

It's not like anyone seriously thinks eugenics makes sense.

>well, except for nazis

[Anonymous No.3745468]

>>3745323
Gee mr scientist, I dont know. I'm just a dropout burnout middled aged stoner whose 140 iq has probably been whittled away to <90 over the years by drugs and indifference so I dont know much of anything, why dont you tell me, why would a government have a vested interest in propagating the ignorance of its constiuents?

Oh and if you could point me towards a confirmed genetic marker for intelligence that would be super, thanks. I am seriously chuging black velvet deluxe and burning a tree so I might not remember to check for your answer, take your time.

[Anonymous No.3745470]

>Scientifically Ideal State
>actually takes IQ exams seriously

[Anonymous No.3745472]

>>3745400
How often do these women die from getting their eggs removed?
I have not heard of any case where women have died from having their eggs removed.
Also before they hit menopause(or if they decide not to have any kids) why not perform a hysterectomy to get as many eggs as they can?

Why not offer a monetary incentive for them to do this? I mean we throw so much welfare at the bottom and they breed like rabbits. Why not cut off some of that and offer it to those high IQ women for their eggs? Also there would be the logical explanation of having those genetics of you Ms/Mrs Scientist instead of having it die out with you. What if the children that come from your genetics go on to do great things in the sciences.

Hell I would give up my sperm however I am in the 1 child per couple category. Though I have some arguments with how the system is set up.

[Anonymous No.3745475]

>>3745449

eugenics make perfect sense, it's all about which traits you want, which traits you don;t want, and which traits are linked to which .

The rest is a question of morality.

[Anonymous No.3745481]

>>3745411
>make sure they don't hurt people and don't let them make more of themselves

this is what I suggest for OP. And also take away his internet driver license.

[Anonymous No.3745499]

I've got a better idea.

IQ of 125+? Voluntary/encouraged Sperm/Ova donation every couple of years.

IQ less than 125? You're allowed to have as many children as you want, as long as either the sperm or the ova come from the bank of intellectual genetic material.

[Anonymous No.3745503]

>>3745468

IQ of 140 yeah right, I have seen so many stoners with that but when it comes to accomplishing anything in life they normally dont, except for their own basic survival.

Also it isnt just genetics/nature, there is a nurture part as well, I am sure if you didnt have your drug use you would be so indifferent to the world. So there is that to take into consideration.

[Anonymous No.3745509]

>>3745475
except that traits such as intelligence have not yet been isolated and as of yet can not be manipulated at all.

You saying that eugenics makes perfect sense is the same thing as somebody explaining why teleporters and warbird cloaks make perfect sense.

This. Is. Not. Science.

Prove me wrong. Imrpove the world you live in. Go right ahead, I wont even mind. I'll sing your praises.

[Anonymous No.3745520]

If you breed exclusively for "intelligence", you won't get a species that is better geared towards survival, you'll just get a species that generally scores higher on the types of tests we currently use to measure intelligence. You could accidentally be forsaking other qualities that are just as important. Eugenics only really works with breeding tastier tomatoes or faster race horses. Human life is too complex.

[Anonymous No.3745552]

I've known people that despite being as dumb as doornails have used blind uncompromising ambition to contribute more to society than a some other highly intelligent people I know could ever dream to.

[Anonymous No.3745555]

>>3745503
dont really care what you think, scored that probably a full decade+ before you were even born, wasnt even trying, lied on it to get to lunch, lied about a bunch of stuff on the other tests they gave me too like when they started asking me about who "inspired" me and I assumed the correct answer to be the pale rider...they were not even trying to see how smart I was, they were trying to see how crazy I was....Iq tests mean jackshit.

And as for accomplishments, what accomplishments? I have my cars and my house, same as anybody else. What accomplishments are there to be had? Do you have an immortal mouse in your pocket? No? Then fuck off.

Unless of course you can get this thread back on track and actually proveeugenics to be anything besides a fairy tale instead of randomly attacking folks with your impotent and predictable angst.

[Anonymous No.3745583]

Psychopaths are always looking to promote a belief system that might normalize their otherwise unacceptable behaviour.

[Anonymous No.3745588]

>SUB-HUMAN TIER
<89 IQ
This category cannot even adopt children. They should not only be sterilized, but also labelled as risks upon society for close watch by law enforcement and mental health practitioners. People falling into this category should be quarantined in dedicated islands, cities, or isolated communities so as to avoid disrupting the higher IQ social order.

My grandma is from the old country. She can't do much besides cook, clean, and take care of kids. She is one of the nicest, most outgoing people you'll ever meet. She probably has an IQ of 85. SHe's 80, but is as spry as someone in their late 50s - lives on her own, takes care of herself, goes to the gym and walks every morning, cooks her own meals (sometimes even mine), does her own laundry and mine, takes care of my cousin's newborn baby, and does a bunch of other things. On top of that, she gave birth to my mom, who gave birth to me (IQ 130).

You are wrong.

[Anonymous No.3745591]

>2011

>thinking eugenics is logical

[Anonymous No.3745595]

ITT OP doesn't know that your IQ depends on the IQ of all the people in the world, ie 100 = the average, 200 = highest possible score. it's dynamic.
so while you test fine today, and you're allowed to have 2 children, so you decide one now and one in a few years. so you have your child, as does lots of other people around you, and progressively smarter people start taking IQ tests. this brings your IQ down as the IQ tests get harder to accommodate smarter people. so then your IQ drops below the tier where you can have a second child and your dreams are crushed.

[Anonymous No.3745596]

>>3745583
Very astute.

That is exactly what they are doing.

years ago we "raided" a fellow named Hal Turner and his minions discovered that this site is a very fertile echo chamber for their propaganda. They are literally here to normalize racism.

Threads like this are a symptom. This thread is not even about the psudeo-scientific field of eugenics, it is about eliminating rational ideals, leaving theirs as an alternative.

[Anonymous No.3745620]

>>3745555
Accomplishments in the name of scientific advancement...
My mom was a theoretical physicist that worked for NASA doing calculations and programming for satellites.
My father worked on genetic engineering on plants to help breed potatoes that were more resilient to presticides.
I am a just a graduate student in psychology working on neural pathways and how the effects of different stimuli in different settings.
All of these are/were with groups but I like to think that we in some way made very small advancement towards science.

Also yeah you didnt have a IQ of 140, you just put down whatever and that is what you scored based off of random guesswork. Its a shame you went to a school that didnt give a damn that they couldnt even make sure that you correctly took the test, or that you even had the motivation to take the test correctly.

Also I never said I am for nothing but eugenics, but I am sad about people with good IQs and doing good in the sciences not to have children and to have their genetics passed down. I am not for a pure eugenics program, I know there has to be diversity, I just dont like see the brightest with careers and advancements in science to not have kids.

[Anonymous No.3745697]

epic thread

[Anonymous No.3745699]

We need legions of retards do things smart people refuse to do.

Also, IQ tests =/= Valid

[Anonymous No.3745705]

>>3745699
Except retards tend to be lazy and incompetent.

You're also omitting the well known statistical fact that the higher one's IQ is, the higher their tendency to hold a job. (Source: The Bell Curve by Charles Murray)

[Anonymous No.3745715]

>People with IQs in this range can still adopt excess children of higher IQ parentage.

Good for these parents. Bad for the kids.

[Anonymous No.3745723]

>>3745705
The Bell Curve is not peer reviewed other than to trash it

"Retards" know enough to know they can't run the world unlike some smart asses I have read in this thread.

And what's so godammed sacred about a big IQ, anyway? Newt Gingrich is smart as a whip and dumb as a barbell at the same time. Hitler was probably a genius, and Stalin was no dummy either. Obama is a crackerjack who is a moral weakling and you're a social misfit.

Fuck this shit thread and the Nazi who started it..

[Anonymous No.3745724]

>>3745715
90-104 isn't terribly low, but you have a point.

[Anonymous No.3745732]

>>3744927
>"The Scientifically Ideal State"
>less then 1% of the population has an IQ 140 or higher
>OP just sterilized and killed the entire human race
>OP has an 80 IQ
>fullretard.jpg

[Anonymous No.3745735]

>>3744934
/END THREAD/
people ,why are you still here?
it was over 2 posts in

[Anonymous No.3745738]

>>3745723
The examples you give are smart people in politics.
While we do need smart people in politics not all smart people are going to be good at politics.

Nothing is sacred or religious about a high IQ, its just that people with a high IQ should go into the sciences and further the knowledge of the world, to create things to better our world, to advance.
We need the high IQ people to do that. Do you want to get onto a clean energy source that doesnt pollute the world, do you want a illnesses like parkinsons and alzheimers cured, injuries involving paralysis being cured, going further into space? You will need those high IQ people to accomplish these things, unless you want to live in the dark ages and watch the world just stagnate.

[Anonymous No.3745758]

>>3745738
I'm believing now that OP is serious slow learner and requires remedial training, starting with "we don't like you, now go away."

[Anonymous No.3745763]

>>3745738
Don't bother arguing with him. He is one of those leftists who thinks that "intelligence does not exist," "intelligence is not heritable," and "IQ is meaningless."

I seriously don't know how people can deny facts in the face of such overwhelming evidence as that for the validity of IQ and psychometrics.

[Anonymous No.3745769]

>>3745758
I am not the OP, and I dont believe in what he wrote.
But like I have said it sucks to see some of our brightest in the sciences not have any children and not pass on their genetics. While people with IQs of 90-100 turn out kids left and right.

[Anonymous No.3745771]

>>3745769
It can "suck" all it wants. I am a proud father of 2 kids, neither one as smart as me

Oh well.

[Anonymous No.3745778]

>>3745771
Stop reproducing, you fucking animal. We can't propel ourselves to the stars if everyone does nothing but fucking--jeezus christ. Sterilize these idiots nao.

[Anonymous No.3745786]

Ok heres an idea. Why not sperm banks for overachievers in life? Win a Nobel prize, your perm is in high demand. Invent a style of art, write a symphony, cure a disease,Be drop dead beautiful, win a sporting event ect. Promote the idea of exceptional sperm to create exceptional children. The idea of raising an anonomous sperm baby is a smaller hurdle than convincing people to go along with a eugenics program that doesnt allow people to breed.
It would be slower, but as these select children mix with the population, the idea of having a selected sperm baby would be less and less bizzare. The same could be done with eggs, but its less risky, and now the baby is twice as foreign to the parents.

[Anonymous No.3745788]

>>3745763
Yeah cultural marxism at its finest with that line of thinking.
Maybe these people not having kids is the right thing to do, what with more leftists with their cultural marxism coming into power who would want their kids to live under that? Maybe they knew a lot more then they let on.

[Anonymous No.3745795]

>>3745786
It is slower but it would be a move in the right direction, sure as hell beats the system we have now.

[Anonymous No.3745813]

Well we do already have it in a way, just sperm donor babies aren't popular except for women that cant find a man. Since they're usually ugly or dumb or have some disease that keeps them from getting a man: the mixing of those genes isn't as effective at making a better gened person.

Besides, you cant just screen for IQ. i don't want a society of smart sociopaths, or batshit ugly geniuses. We need to screen for a huge number of traits in a person and i don't see it feasible.
the best way to screen for that seems to be attraction. Women want a man that smart, funny, articulate, handsome, strong, healthy, driven, and caring. if somehow we could use that to an advantage.

[Anonymous No.3745821]

wait
what about the ethical issue?

[Anonymous No.3745826]

nurture vs nature.
The thing is smart people can have dumb children and vice versa. The possibility to increase potential is less than the potential for damages caused. This sort of thinking typically occurs when resources are scarce. It is the final level of enemy theory, to discern all the way down to your own population to determine who is a threat. The rule is that enemies are created based offf of scarcity and jeslousy for resources. The conclusion is to only support those with a guaranteed chance of increasing resource. ( the reverse side is opposing those who do not increase resource) This is flawed because the people chosen might not be able to remedy or increase output.

[Anonymous No.3745827]

The real solution is public transparency of problems , solutions of that sort poses the drawback of the governing body being elected by specality and once the door of hidden problems is open it leads to overthrow of the body by discredation of those unable to solve the problem internally. However by coupling the notion of a disperse set of skills to democracy you can create an environment where people select those who already believe they have the skills to accomplish the job. Perhaps once in office politicians should be rated against and compensation for the level completion or assistance to a problem they have. If they increase the economy by a certin amount then they can be paid more. ( this leads to wanting to help the offical since when he gets paid more he will pay you more) There should be some set measurement where people rate the job as well as the people they measure against. If you have only bad candidates and you have to chose between them then you should also be able to choose to assign a grade to how well they do the job. This method will hopefully attract talent outside of running office to offer solutions that will be paid for by the elected official. Instead of looking at it as the best person at all the jobs by assigning IQ. Assign everyone the current job and watch as different skills are brought in to solve certain facets of a particular problem. ( transpose problem for accumulating more resource) ( transpose jobs for accumulating more resources) the reason I decided to keep them and mention afterwards was to keep the wording in common vernacular.

[Anonymous No.3745828]

>>3745821
How can you think it's unethical when you consider that the product is a new breed of mankind? A new breed of mankind that is nearly twice as intelligent as the former.

[Anonymous No.3745835]

"Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence."

"Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A variety of sophisticated brain-mapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability, known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure that is likewise under strong genetic control."

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21826061

www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf

[Anonymous No.3745837]

>>3745828
yes, i understand this will be a benefit to future generations
but how can you justify disallowing less intelligent people from having any form of children? while /sci/ may just view them as whooping rednecks, what about the one generation that is denied their basic human rights?

[Anonymous No.3745839]

>implying iq tests aren't culturally biased
>implying people who study the brain accept iqs as an actual determinant of intelligence (hint, they don't)
>implying knowing who marie curie was means you have greater potential for learning (yes, this was an actual question on my iq test)
>implying an iq test is not biased by the giver or is consistent in any reasonable fashion
>implying my score of 127 means i should have one child, yet i would be a terrible father

[Anonymous No.3745843]

finally you will get to a point where people will notice they don't have to do the work they just have to get the right public perception. This can be weighed against with transperncy because it is harder to skew public perception when the data is present. Finally there should a method of encouraging communication since it is the fundamental of the entire schematic.

[Anonymous No.3745852]

>>3745839
>implying all IQ tests are the same

[Anonymous No.3745854]

Side note.
This is how humans got to where we are today. Our entirety of existence is owed to communication which led to our ability to crowd source.

[Anonymous No.3745858]

>>3745852
i didn't - read number 4, that was one of my criticisms

[Anonymous No.3745859]

>>3745839
so your argument is, basically, all we need to do is fix the IQ test.
of course, it has had problems in the past, but assuming one is more or less accurate, would you still approve of this?

[Anonymous No.3745861]

>>3745859
if you can accurately measure the total intelligence of a human being, you will have earned yourself a nobel prize sir!

[Anonymous No.3745862]

>>3745861
>hurp
>nothing can be measured
>"INTELLIGENCE IS NOT IN THE BRAIN"
>"IT COMES FROM THE SOUL"

[Anonymous No.3745877]

>>3745862
oh hm i was gonna post a nicer version of this
but yeah, i mean everything is in the brain, it can't be THAT difficult to map out one's intelligence
that includes intrapersonal/musical/whatever, that stuff's important too

[Anonymous No.3745880]

>>3745862
that's not what i meant, as i am an atheist, and don't believe in any 'soul'. we simply do not know how the brain works, and cannot accurately attach a numerical value to anything we would call 'pure intelligence'.

a degree or phd is a test on how hard you are willing to work, and how smart you are, but again, no accurate 'numerical' value is attached to a degree.

i reiterate that there is simply no current way to accurately measure intelligence that is accepted by most in the scientific community, and that anyone who does figure it out would get a nobel prize or something of equal value.

[Anonymous No.3745886]

>>3745828
The end may be ethical. We are talking about morality of the means.
do the ends justify the means?

[Anonymous No.3745892]

>>3745880
Oh my god, read this post and the study cited:
>>3745835
>>3745835
>>3745835
>>3745835

Patterns in brain MORPHOLOGY (i.e. brain structure) are observed in people with high IQs. If all the statistics on IQ and income, IQ and divorce, IQ and brain size, IQ and academic achievement, etc., were all not enough to convince you, SURELY BRAIN ANATOMY SHOULD.

If you read the whole study and still deny that IQ or g exists, you are honestly on the level of Creationists in terms of stark denialism of scientific evidence.

[Anonymous No.3745901]

>>3745892
then, show me a test which works. show me a numerical value we can attach to raw intelligence. show me show me show me.

different sizes of different parts of the brain may connect well with statistics on how well that person does in society, but where is the measuring stick? where's the accuracy? where are the studies? why isn't steven pinker retiring by now if we know so much about the brain simply by viewing it's different structures?

i recommend you read mr pinker's books 'How the mind works' and 'the blank slate'. we are like cavemen when it comes to the brain and understanding it.

i reiterate, if you can devise a test which will accurately depict a person's 'raw' intelligence, you will win a nobel prize.

[Anonymous No.3745902]

>>3745892
i don't think he was denying it existed, in fact, i dont think he said anything about that
he just said we can't accurately measure it; in fact, using the image you quoted, a bunch of those were vague, NA, or NR, which means we still do not have a very strong grasp of how the brain works, especially relating to IQ.

[Anonymous No.3745905]

>>3745901
So you're still in denial. Please at least read the abstract + discussion section if you can't handle the major parts of the study.

[Anonymous No.3745913]

>>3745901
further, it is highly likely that those who have high scores on IQ tests are successful, but it is also likely that there are many failures with high IQs. OP is ignoring nurture, and focusing on nature as a means to stop or force you to have children. in this, he has either solved the nature vs. nurture problem (again, nobel prize awaits you) or has ignored it. a costly mistake when trying to build a system for the world to live by.

[Anonymous No.3745919]

If you read the whole study and still deny that IQ or g exists, you are honestly on the level of Creationists in terms of stark denialism of scientific evidence.

<< lol how do you know that the people who wrote the paper didn't suggest that they were intelligent then write a paper about themselves? It's called ethnocentrism and it skews perception of what is a positive trait to those who can shape perception. I think the most disgusting aspect of this however is that the artical emplies genetics rather than nature. There was a time when it was suggested brain size was most critical to intelligence then Einstein came along, next should we discover that this theory is inadequate while arbitrarily killing off or disallowing people to reproduce? You sir should consider that the complexity of the system is not at the level to which we can identify universal positive traits and therefore should not let the system be compromised until we can prove the proof of the proof of the proof. All the way down to the level of absolute certainty by the global populace, unbiased unadulterated time tested global exceptance. The enticement to fashion others as yourself when you have gained the ability to do so at the exspence of diversity. ( paused for dramatic effect)

[Anonymous No.3745938]

Also rule of the jungle is already set in place. To actually enforce it ourselves would be to be redundant and most likely simply alter the balance in those enforcing and creating it. Just as kings justified there rule through a connection with god modern people's justifiy rule with a connection to his or her intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3745940]

>>3745919
>There was a time when it was suggested brain size was most critical to intelligence then Einstein came along, next should we discover that this theory is inadequate while arbitrarily killing off or disallowing people to reproduce?

I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest, but Einstein was responsible for relativity and the photoelectric effect; nothing about brain size.

And modern MRI studies have shown that brain size is correlated with IQ by about 0.44, which is statistically significant.
Study:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r173v725160tn626/

[Anonymous No.3745942]

>>3745919
>artical emplies
>exspence
your grammar is shit.
and the article most definitely mentioned nature. i don't think it said anything about brain size.
and the implication that the writers wrote the articles about themselves is completely unsupported.
your later sentences make less and less sense. are you drunk?

[Anonymous No.3745950]

In the last two boxes there should be their and exceptance should be acceptance this was auto spell not me unitentially typing the word rather having a predictive text and me not noticing until afterwards

[Anonymous No.3745953]

>>3745950
What is your IQ score, by chance?

[Anonymous No.3745963]

.>>3745919
even if we can accurately measure it, what makes you think everyone having great intelligence would be good for the world?

think of imhotep and the step pyramid:

>1 architect
>thousands of builders

the world is run by people with low IQs, my friend. Einstein wasn't a fucking farmer or construction worker for a reason.

[Anonymous No.3745965]

>>3745953
thread is now shit
nothing to see here folks

[Anonymous No.3745970]

>>3745953

>Implying you could even understand his answer
>Implying he wont just write like an idiot again

[Anonymous No.3745982]

This is what jobless atheists do in their time.
I see, sperm collecting...

[Anonymous No.3745983]

>>3745738
>people with a high IQ should go into the sciences

You going to tell me what I should do, Mr Do-gooder? I've got a IQ the size of the planet and you're going to tell me what I should do? Why should I listen to you? And have you never heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences?

jesuz fuck, you're stupid

[Anonymous No.3745991]

>>3745963
Are you seriously implying that the world wouldn't be better off with high intelligence? We would be in the Stone Age if it weren't for our intelligence and the prehistoric evolution thereof. Intelligence allows us to modify our environment to make our lives easier and more meaningful. I don't think I need to stress this particular point further.

Also, what makes you assume that high IQ people are averse to hard work? Most intelligent people are in white collar professions because they *can*. If the average intelligence were in the future significantly higher than it is now, the "new average" (so to speak) would be intelligent by today's standards, yet they would still have to do menial labor. They would have no other option.

If anything, society should run more smoothly with a high IQ populous. Look at Singapore. Their average IQ is around 108, and their economy is one of the most affluent in the world. Not to mention their high level of productivity and social stability.

High IQ is good. Everyone needs more of it.

[Anonymous No.3746012]

>>3745991
they may not be averse to work. i believe society functions best with dumb and smart people for the same reason that having all the best composers work on the same piece would not be better than having just one composer work on it.

again, high IQ does not necessarily mean you will be a good worker either, or that you will be a good father.

IT MAY BE THE CASE that successful people have IQs, but the main fallacy here is that not all people with high IQs are successful. nature and nurture come into play and we simply haven't solved that problem yet. we need to know more before being able to actively decide the future for our species.

also, I still contend that someone needs to be the trashman. if that person is dumb, he will put up with it easier than someone who sould be doing research.

[Anonymous No.3746021]

>>3746012
>IT MAY BE THE CASE that successful people have IQs, but the main fallacy here is that not all people with high IQs are successful. nature and nurture come into play and we simply haven't solved that problem yet. we need to know more before being able to actively decide the future for our species.

Yes. Obviously IQ doesn't entirely determine an individual's success. However, it does help determine the success of a nation, society, or group.

A population-wide increase in IQ will, over time, undoubtedly raise the number of brilliant researchers, scientists, and engineers. Some people will still end up poor due to circumstance and despite their intelligence. Nevertheless, our society is meritocratic enough that the vast majority of intelligent people will have a chance to contribute to society in ways they would have been unable with lower IQs.

[Anonymous No.3746028]

You guys are so full of shit its not worth posting, but i guess i have to say it sooner or later.

A topic like this to normal people would have required actual thought, but you would have to be mentally deficient in a way to really think about it, think of the processes etc.

Yeah its not normal OP, go get a job, a girlfriend. Then you will eventually realise everything you said means fuck all, the fact that you are your own man, and why you should give a cunt about the next generation IQ.... If you think your above average and all your internet IQ tests tell you so, then be happy your "above" normal people and take advantage of your intelligence.

If you havent done any of the above, then perhaps your not as smart as you think you are. Goodluck XD :) : ):) xx

[Anonymous No.3746035]

>>3746028
Sorry, I look at evidence and evaluate it. I don't leave my judgments to emotions.

That is: "ah its not normal OP, go get a job, a girlfriend. Then you will eventually realise everything you said means fuck all" is irrelevant and a red herring to the central argument.

[Anonymous No.3746074]

>>3745991
>Also, what makes you assume that high IQ people are averse to hard work?
How many genius level IQs do you think will be content with being a construction worker?

[Anonymous No.3746078]

>>3746074
Chris Langan has the highest IQ in the world, yet he's a bar bouncer and seems to be content.

[Anonymous No.3746082]

>>3746078
bouncers do not contribute to the world in the way that OP seems to imagine they will.

the question should have been: 'how many people with IQs who are going to contribute to the world would be content with being a construction worker?'

[Anonymous No.3746085]

If you're planning to breed the human species into an even higher state of intelligence I've got bad news for you: we're about as evolved as it gets:

- bigger brains are a possibility, but these consume energy like fuck and axions become to long

-denser brains are also a good way to go but oh wait, efficiency loss due to erorscaused by wild firing

- faster connections between neurons are also big consumers

-and lastly more wiring, also an energywhore

So, if you are going for bigger intelligence then you are breeding a whole different species, one with a either way more efficient or a wat diffferent metabolism

and besides, we need the dumb fucks for all the heavy lifting and to fill all the ill-paying jobs. It's not like a genius is going to collect garbage or wash you're windows.
Though we could have robotic substitutes etc. but we'd face unemployment and no matter which way you turn it, money will always be an important factor in this world, without it there would not be a service-reward system and all would grind to a halt

also this is now an emma watson thread

[Anonymous No.3746091]

>>3746085
i agree, but our brains are getting smaller. scientists suspect this is because it is becoming more efficient, and losing grey matter, but some believe we are actually getting more stupid.

please commence dump of emma watson

[Anonymous No.3746093]

>>3746085
>implying you know the physiology of intelligence

If there is one person with an IQ of 190 (there is), and s/he is still alive and healthy, we can all potentially have that genotype. Stop talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.3746106]

>>3746085
So the whole point of modern society is that we have an almost unlimited inflow of energy into our body. You will not make me believe that we cannot specialize our species into becoming smarter at the expense of energy (which is no problem at all).

[Anonymous No.3746170]

>>3746093
Implying you fucking know it. The higher the IQ the less socially functional an individual will be. You IQ worshippers are the worst idiots on this planet. In fact, I wish you will be the first to get the highest IQs...

[Anonymous No.3746192]

>>3746170
>The higher the IQ the less socially functional an individual will be.
That is simply not true.
The global correlation goes the other way around. Lower IQ is weakly related less social behaviour. This shouldn't be a surprise, if you've ever interacted with somebody with an IQ of 80.
True, in the tip of the top IQ, the relation is reversed. But there might be 3rd factor causing both high IQ and a-social behaviour (higher probability of savants, for example).

[Anonymous No.3746220]

>>3746192
How about the biological factors which underlie both high IQ and breeds more savants are the same which makes them less socially functional? I think this is more likely and this is why this high-IQ agenda is a sign of stupidity on the part of those who propose it. There are longitudinal studies done on the gifted which show this correlation. High IQ is not a magic bullet which simply solves all your problems and is not a case of more is better on all accounts. There are major trade-offs that come with "more intelligence".
More in terms of quantity is not always more in terms of quality of life.

[Anonymous No.3746226]

>>3746220
So instead of breeding the smart guys, we could sterilize the dumb ones.
Btw, I don't actually support this, I'm just pointing out that human kind could become smarter over time.

[Anonymous No.3746245]

>>3746226
It's the same thing. Increasing the average scores would have to be accompanied by a change in the biological/genetic substrates which make someone more likely to have a higher score. Which on the whole will lead to the same problem, that people will begin to have similar symptoms as those in the higher parts of the spectrum.
And what will this achieve? Is there any other reason for doing this other than a magical belief in the power of IQ? More is not better, again.
This would be a reification of a human construct on the biological composition of the species to get more of the same construct, in quantitative terms. We might be discouraging other forms of intelligence which are not captured by the limited tasks involved in IQ testing.

[Anonymous No.3746248]

>implying the ideal society is one with only people that score well on IQ tests
confirmed for complete retard / aspie.

[Anonymous No.3746734]

We are on the verge of an englightenment era.
Artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, transhumanism, space travel.
What makes you think 'you' and all of 'us' will not be considered down in the IQ dump within the century? Nature will sort itself out. I advise you to re-evaluate your inflated self-worth.

[Anonymous No.3746753]

This is what OP thinks society should look like

[Anonymous No.3748057]

bump

[Anonymous No.3748081]

>>3746245
>This would be a reification of a human construct on the biological composition of the species to get more of the same construct, in quantitative terms. We might be discouraging other forms of intelligence which are not captured by the limited tasks involved in IQ testing.

Instead of studying the thesaurus, you should have read the cornucopia of studies showing IQ to be heritable, reflect brain composition, and correlate with life achievements. Some of them are even linked in this thread ffs.

[OP No.3748091]

>>3746753
Too much color and variation. Needs to be more uniform and gray.

[Anonymous No.3748096]

>>3744927

139 is pretty fucking high, why 1 child?

[Anonymous No.3748111]

>Implying my mom isn't stupid as hell
>Implying I'm not in the top 5% of my class
>Implying smart people always raise smart kids

[Anonymous No.3748120]

>>3744938

That's the old version. But *jizz in my pants* for seeing someone else use my picture!
I'd post the newer version, but it's on my desktop, which currently is missing RAM because the sticks busted.
Essentially, it groups them into main categories:
1) Decreases variation within a population.
2) Unforseen consequences.
3) (I fucking forget. Maybe someone else remembers)
4) It's a scientific time waster.

And then there is that guy that always argues with point 2 and point 3, which I always refute with published papers.
I've been working on putting together a 3rd version which includes web addresses to proper citations, but it's been rough with everything on my desktop inaccessible.

[Anonymous No.3748132]

>Implying IQ or learning capabilities are genetic and not learned (barring retards)

[Anonymous No.3748134]

>>3748132
>thinks IQ is learned

nope.avi

[Anonymous No.3748145]

>>3748134
>Thinks it isn't

[Anonymous No.3748159]

>>3748134
>>3748145

>don't realize that there are heritable AND environmental factors which contribute to high IQ's.
>Arguing from absolutist standpoints.

[Anonymous No.3748163]

>>3748159
>Implying it isn't learned more than genetic

[Anonymous No.3748175]

>>3748163
see:
>>3748169

[Anonymous No.3748223]

>>3748175
>Implying brain chemistry influences the capability to learn and not the way in which we learn
>Implying that research isn't in it's newer stages

[Anonymous No.3748232]

>>3748223
You didn't even read the abstract of the studies, did you?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3748239]

>>3748163

> implying environment can ever overcome genetic retardation

[Anonymous No.3748277]

>>3748239
>Implying a genetically "inferior" brain that is nurtured and taught from an early age to value intelligence and problem solving skills will not have a higher IQ than a brain which is genetically "superior" but never taught to value the factors in an IQ test

[Anonymous No.3748282]

>>3748277
>implying Lamarckianism

Lol no.

[Anonymous No.3748284]

You're right OP, the world would be better if aspies reproduced. Then nobody would have to talk to anybody

[Anonymous No.3748309]

>>3748282
>Implying behavior is the same thing as actual genetic changes

[Anonymous No.3748322]

>>3748282
He isn't suggesting a Lamarckian mechanism for intelligence.

He's saying that (contrary to their aim) the result of IQ tests are influenced by training.
It certainly seems plausible that a child that is regularly given puzzles of the type featured in IQ tests will tend to be better at solving them than a child that encounters that form of puzzle for the first time during an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.3748333]

>>3748309

>implying behavior is not partially controlled by genes

[Anonymous No.3748359]

>>3748333
Nope, he's not implying that either.

Your shit genes are showing.

[Anonymous No.3748365]

>>3748333
>Implying outside of psychological disorders (and lolteenageangst) your behavior isn't a function of the way you were raised
>Implying an person with "average" brain chemistry who was reared in an environment where intelligence and critical thinking were valued won't most likely do better on an IQ test than a "brilliant" person who was raised by drug addicts and was never forced to go to school

>Implying either of those scenarios couldn't be inversed through some sort of rebellion, making the drug addicts' kid knowledge hungry while making the good parents' kid a fuckup (which again, is related to their environment)

[Anonymous No.3748394]

>>3748365


>implying gene by environment interactions don't occur.
>implying there are no genes which determine differential likelihoods of rebelling against parents.

[Anonymous No.3748420]

>>3748394
>Implying that even if the desire to rebel was completely genetic (which it isn't) it wouldn't still depend on how the child was raised to determine in which way the chlid rebelled, making environment a factor in both variable and genetics only in one.

[Anonymous No.3748458]

>>3748365
Looks like we have a blank slatist on our hands.

Read pic related; from a peer reviewed summary of modern research.

[Anonymous No.3748481]

>People with IQs in this range can still adopt excess children of higher IQ parentage.

Why the fuck would you do that? Retards raise retards, regardless of the child's IQ.

[Anonymous No.3748500]

>>3748481
Nope.

IQ's of identical twins reared apart
http://www.springerlink.com/content/735mg282v8810527/

IQ tends to be the same with very little difference dependent upon upbringing.

[Anonymous No.3748501]

>IQ tests are influenced by training

Do more IQ tests, get a better IQ.

After a while you learn to recognize the pattern of the hoops they make you jump through.

[Anonymous No.3748766]

Funny btw, how some of the people think OP is a nazi. He's a sociopath, but no nazi.

Hitler decreased the mean global IQ by killing jews, who had/have an above average IQ. Clearly seen by the distribution of nobel prizes between jews/non jews.

[Anonymous No.3748781]

>>3748766
Exactly. If anything, under OP's plan, eventually Ashkenazi Jews should become one of the world's most populous ethnicities. They have the highest mean IQ scores of any racial group, even higher than East Asians.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3748808]

>>3748277

Extreme retardation does not go away with good teachers.

[Anonymous No.3748829]

>>3748808
Nor does it go away with valid information.

>You are a good example of that

[Anonymous No.3748832]

>>3748808
this

some people are just born dumb.

[Anonymous No.3748857]

OP, what are you, twelve?

[Anonymous No.3748870]

Hello there, just came to this board for the first time.

Implying sure is big around here

And also for those who don't seem to get it, IQ tests don't have to do with knowledge, just mental capacity. I thought this was obvious?

[Anonymous No.3748876]

>>3748870
>And also for those who don't seem to get it, IQ tests don't have to do with knowledge, just mental capacity. I thought this was obvious?

Welcome to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3748895]

>>3748870

Someone posts this exact thread with that exact picture and those exact words as OP at least once a week.
We have thoroughly exhausted the arguments against eugenics, so it was slightly refreshing to argue about the IQ aspect of it for a change.

[Anonymous No.3748908]

>>3748832
>>3748808
These two are good examples of their own beliefs.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3748913]

>>3748870

Can you have knowledge without mental capacity?

[Anonymous No.3748935]

Consider the following

we all become prosthetic cyborgs within one hive mind.

[Anonymous No.3748954]

>>3748913
Yes.

>It's just shitty knowledge, like that which you seem to possess diarrhea format.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3748982]

>>3748954

> knowledge can exist without mental capacity
> and said knowledge is shitty

You seem to define mental capacity oddly. What is your definition?

[Anonymous No.3748995]

>>3744927
Better plan OP

180+IQ:
Must have children someone who has an IQ of 100 or so.

150 - 179 IQ:
Must have children with people who have 105 - 139 IQ

And so on and so on with everyone else.

This plan is hundred times better mostly because we could breed out the retardation without sacrificing diversity that could cause genetic diseases. Also you won't have to do a nazi like thing and sterilize people like a bat shit crazy person.

>mfw this method is the same as fucking way people breed cattle to get better offsprings
>mfw I win noble prize for this

captcha: Jewpedler ttaidiz

[Anonymous No.3748999]

>>3748935
>And we discover a cosmic society and now we're just neurons in some cosmic brain.

GG.

[Anonymous No.3749031]

>>3748999

individualism is an overrated complex.

[Anonymous No.3749036]

>>3748995
>This plan is hundred times better mostly because we could breed out the retardation without sacrificing diversity that could cause genetic diseases.

But you will still be limiting the variation in the population. There will still be unintended consequences. It will still take hundreds, if not thousands, of generations to have any effect.

[Anonymous No.3749083]

>>3749036
How are is this going to limiting the variation? It would be breeding people who are going to be completely different and passing only the dominate. (not sure if higher intelligence would be dominate trait) also we can end up with a people who are not just smart but fucking strong, beautiful and still have much variation as there is now. Also everyone is bitching how genetics are going to end up fucked up if we don't have enough people. I hope you guys know during our evolution there there was a bunch of our fucking dumb ass fucking monkey caveman ancesters that ended up dying and only very few variation to but look at us now. What you guys consider large amount of differences in genetics is barely nothing compared with what use to be in the past. It was called the bottleneck effect if I remember right. Also OP plan would probably take just as long then with less people around because it would cause another bottleneck effect unlike my plan.

[Anonymous No.3749094]

I hope humanity manages to discover the principles of intelligence and crate intelligent machines before they go the way of the dodo bird.

Then with some luck, these machines evolve like computers did (Moores Law)

As soon as this happens, these machines will be superior to humans in every aspect, maybe except self recreation/reproduction. But factories could be used for that.
If mankind would create strong intelligent electronics, they would even outperform a human brain today, since the switching speed is faster and memory is much smaller than neurons in the human brain.

Imagine to have an working memory of 2TB, accessible in hundreds of nanoseconds. Some servers (e.g.Sunfire X4800 M2) can do it, they just lacks intelligence and a body for movement and interaction with the outside world and an onboard fuel cell.

[Anonymous No.3749165]

>>3745111
Nice trips.

[Anonymous No.3751581]

patience is a virtue evolutionarily speaking. Taking the humanity out of life to try to speed up evolution will not benefit our future and it will even have an unnatural effect on the way we are supposed to evolve. You should feel fortunate that so much change and advancement is taking place in a single generation. Evolution normally takes millions of generations worth of lifeforms for small amounts of change to take place.

[Anonymous No.3751629]

>>3744927

not in my American, NEVER ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

[Anonymous No.3752216]

>>3744927
Forget the spserm. If you are male, you get your brains from your mother.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201002/identical-genetically-different-and-w
hy-you-can-thank-your-mother-yo

[Anonymous No.3752314]

>>3752216
>brains from Mom

Wow, that's scary. that would mean that Mom really wasn't the fuck-witted addle pated moron she played all her life, but was secretly a repressed Galileo.

Whocuddanode?

[Anonymous No.3752869]

Personally, I think good parenting can do more to help a kid succeed than genes. I know a guy who's pretty much a genius at everything he does (straight A's and shit in EVERYTHING), but his parents were at best average intelligence and they work menial jobs. What they did right was being good parents and fostering a strong sense of importance when it comes to education and shit early on in his life.

So yeah, most people can be successful if they only had good role-models or parents. Also, I am probably sure that most of the people who tout the same old "ENSLAVE ALL PLEBS"-line are themselves only average or slightly above-average intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3752929]

>>3752869
Jesus christ since when were grades a good approximation of intelligence. They could just as well call them a give-a-fuckometers since that's all they're good for.

Now, if we ignored that part of your dumb as shit example, it still only accounts for one out of billions of people. All it does is show that average parents can produce intelligent offspring, not giving even a hint of an indication of an approximation of the frequency of this occuring.

In short, everything you've said can be categorized into three strongly overlapping groups;
Dumb as shit shit
Irrelevant fucking bullshit
Just plain fucking wrong

I mean, your conclusion doesn't even follow from the faulty example based on the false premise. I can imagine no way you could be more wrong.

[Anonymous No.3753011]

>>3752216

The ONLY possible way this can be true, and not conflict with experimental evidence is that there's a mutation in my 'X' chromosome.

Because my mom is dumber than a box of rocks... I mean hardcore fundamentalist christian, sun revolves around earth, pants on head retarded.