Eugenics: The path to a brighter future for man

[Anonymous No.3871536]

== Genetic Basis for Human Intelligence Confirmed ==
Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic
Molecular Psychiatry; 9 August 2011; doi:10.1038/mp.2011.85

"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."

"We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants."

www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201185a.html

== IQ Reflects Anatomical Brain Differences ==
Genetics of Brain Structure and Intelligence
Annu. Rev. Neuroscience; 2005. 28:1–23; doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135655

"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."

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

[Anonymous No.3871542]

Darwin approves of your post.

[Anonymous No.3871548]

The problem of eugenics in one sentence:

People are eventually going to use it to execute/deny reproductive rights to people that they disagree with personally/politically.

Besides, it takes a society of people willing to take risks and work hard to improve things and that could be accomplished with the help of nearly everyone.

[Anonymous No.3871549]

agreed OP

the only ones against this are butthurt leftists and low IQ fags

[Anonymous No.3871553]

The question is do you want to improve the marketability of high IQ sperm or do you want to forcibly sterilize low IQ people?

[Anonymous No.3871555]

>>3871548
No, we base eugenics on who has a,b,c,...,z genes that produce high intelligence. We do not practice the same "eugenics" that Nazi Germany did.

Who has x,y,...,z genes, is an empirical and objective decision. It cannot possibly be confounded in politics or at the discretion of some corrupt politician.

[Anonymous No.3871559]

>>3871555
Yeah it always starts off that way but the chance for corruption is great when you're dealing with human lives.

[Anonymous No.3871560]

>>3871553
Both sound good to me. Not OP.

[Anonymous No.3871561]

>>3871555
>kill stupid people
>all the smart people have to staff retail jobs and farm all day to survive
>wish that we could bring the stupid people back, but noone has time to research how

[Anonymous No.3871562]

gene therapy
/thread

[Anonymous No.3871567]

still the same /sci/.

i left for 3 months, come back and see this shit. again.

shit's depressing. don't you guys have anything better to do with your lives than talk shit about IQ? i mean, really.

that bullshit with IQ goes out the fucking window when you're actually involved in research of your own and/or stumped on problems. your 'ridiculously high' IQ won't help you for shit in a graduate class when everyone, including you, feels stumped for weeks by a difficult problem/proof.

i've seen you same people who talk shit about IQ and intelligence drop out of grad school when your egos get crushed and you realize true creativity and intellectual capacity.

[Anonymous No.3871568]

How about instead of an active eugenics program, we just stop dysgenic breeding by paying poor/low intelligence people to have kids.

Its as easy as requiring demo birth control shots to get any welfare for women, and being on welfare for more than 12 months after age 18 requires sterilization. No one is coerced or forced, they just get to choose between free shit and more kids.

[Anonymous No.3871571]

Eugenics suffers from one key problem: you are selecting for things that are, by definition, unfit for natural selection.

I don't doubt it would be effective, but only in direct relation to how draconian the measures used to implement it. Soft eugenics would be expensive and have a few percent effect every generation. Hard eugenics would be abominable and have a larger effect.

Even effective eugenics has some important problems. That you will inadvertently select for things that are very bad for the individual, as with dogs and hip dysplasia. There is no real way to avoid this without extensive knowledge of genetics, and if you have that eugenics is obsolete compared to genetic engineering.

[Anonymous No.3871573]

>>3871567

You have no reason to believe me, of course, but we this is the first eugenics thread I've seen in at least a month, and I'm here erryday.

[Anonymous No.3871576]

>>3871561
>implying high IQ people are lazy

Hurr. People with low IQs are much more likely to not work.

Chris Langan is a fucking lowly bouncer for christ's sake. It's a pride issue, not an intellectual issue.

[Anonymous No.3871577]

>>3871542
>select for individuals with certain genes that correlate to higher intelligence
>disregard all other genes that confer survivability and/or protection against diseases, other harmful environmental factors
>reduce the effective human population, despite the census population remaining the same
>homogenize allele frequencies around the world, due to lower population size increase inbreeding coefficient and depression
>reduce variation and heterozygosity in the world

If you pause and think, this is the single most retarded idea anyone can come up with. Darwin definitely wouldn't agree with it. Hell I didn't even mention the social ramifications of doing this. If you think eugenics would actually work, you'd be the first to go because of your low IQ.

[Anonymous No.3871578]

>>3871568
Any effort to stop dysgenic breeding would qualify as eugenics as well.

[Anonymous No.3871582]

>breed only high iq people
>lose genes that give resistant to plagues/diseases
>most of population wiped out when one arises
>start again with low population, genetic variation reduced even more
>drift becomes even deadlier

[Anonymous No.3871585]

>>3871573
there's about three on the 1st page, bro, including this one.

u cereal?

[Anonymous No.3871587]

>>3871585

Today they have resurfaced, sure. But for the last few weeks there was nothing.

[Anonymous No.3871589]

>>3871577
>blah blah blah blah blah

[Anonymous No.3871601]

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
tl;dr
study suggests breeding for a specific trait has multiple effects on the physiology of an organism

[Anonymous No.3871610]

>>3871577
>If you pause and think, this is the single most retarded idea anyone can come up with.

sure is dogma in here. lots of people who have kids already practice eugenics, it just differs quantitatively from how most people think of the idea.

[Anonymous No.3871617]

>>3871582
>breed only high iq people
>lose genes that give resistant to plagues/diseases
Uh, the second thing is not a consequence of the first thing, unless you have evidence that links low I.Q. individuals with higher resistances to selected diseases.

[Anonymous No.3871618]

>>3871610

It is only eugenics if it is enforced from outside. The process by which any individual chooses their mate could not reasonably be considered eugenics, or you dilute the whole term to meaninglessness.

[Anonymous No.3871622]

>>3871617

You would be inadvertently breeding in these traits, as a side-effect. If you have the level of genetic understanding to avoid this, however, eugenics is obsolete in the face of gene therapy and genetic engineering.

[Anonymous No.3871636]

>>3871578
No, only forced sterilization would be. Undergoing sterilization to gain access to long term welfare is totally optional.

[Anonymous No.3871640]

I made a few posts in this thread already, so excuse me if repeat here;

And remember, I think eugenics would work. Animal husbandry works, natural selection works, and we know, to a large degree, what we are doing. However, in practical terms, it would be impossible to implement. And here is why.


1. It takes longer than the average lifespan of a human authority to show results. So once you have the eugenics system in place, even if you have truly noble and practical goals, you have to trust that the next authority isn't going to have different, arbitrary, politically motivated goals; either for eugenics, or using the eugenics system for more base ethnic cleansing goals.

2. You will be breeding out potentially useful traits, a side-effect of throttling the gene pool; and breeding in potentially deleterious traits, a side-effect of our relative ignorance of genetics. You can only avoid this by slowing down the whole process, multiplying problems 1 and 3.

3. By the time we have the level of genetic understanding to implement a fast, effective eugenics program in earnest, we will have enough to allow for gene therapy and genetic engineering. These allow for augmentations to be made in under a single generation, and for mistakes to be corrected within a single lifetime. Any less effective eugenics program we begin now would not show fruit until well after we have genetic understanding at this level.

[Anonymous No.3871652]

>>3871640 here

And I don't even mention the kind of policies that would be required to implement maximal and minimal eugenics.

For minimal, ie, we offer incentives for the worst people to abstain from breeding, we need to pony up the cash, and police cheaters. Very expensive, for a few percent bump per generation.

For maximal, ie, allowing only the best to breed, we need extensive policing, including sterilization, mandatory abortions, and so on. Draconian policies, for a slightly faster upward bump. (and recall the problems with more haste from my first post)

[Anonymous No.3871663]

>>3871640
>1. It takes longer than the average lifespan of a human authority to show results. So once you have the eugenics system in place, even if you have truly noble and practical goals, you have to trust that the next authority isn't going to have different, arbitrary, politically motivated goals; either for eugenics, or using the eugenics system for more base ethnic cleansing goals.
Well, you can make the same argument against the founding of the U.S. "Hurr we make it now, but after I die, an evil person could take over."

>2. You will be breeding out potentially useful traits, a side-effect of throttling the gene pool; and breeding in potentially deleterious traits, a side-effect of our relative ignorance of genetics. You can only avoid this by slowing down the whole process, multiplying problems 1 and 3.

You would have to prove that high IQ is linked to diseases (protip: highly intelligent people are just as, if not more, healthy than the populous). There are only rare instances in which diseases can increase IQ: torsion dystonia and Asperger's. Obviously we would take that into fucking account and not breed people with torsion dystonia or crippling Asperger's, regardless of their intelligence. You are assuming the administrators of this eugenics program would blindly breed people with high IQs without looking at other important traits (such as being handicapped).

>3. By the time we have the level of genetic understanding to implement a fast, effective eugenics program in earnest, we will have enough to allow for gene therapy and genetic engineering. These allow for augmentations to be made in under a single generation, and for mistakes to be corrected within a single lifetime. Any less effective eugenics program we begin now would not show fruit until well after we have genetic understanding at this level.

That relies on future innovations, tons of assumptions, and numerous breakthroughs that have no indication of happening soon.

[Anonymous No.3871670]

>>3871536

What an overly complex way to state something that should be common sense: You take after your fucking parents.

Your parents have brown hair? So do you.

Your parents are short? So are you.

Your parents are fucking stupid? Let's spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort finding absolutely every tiny piece of evidence we need to prove beyond a doubt that this can be inherited, even though it's completely evident to anybody who has ever gone outside.

[Anonymous No.3871681]

>>3871670
>Your parents are fucking stupid? Let's spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort finding absolutely every tiny piece of evidence we need to prove beyond a doubt that this can be inherited, even though it's completely evident to anybody who has ever gone outside.

Yes, it may be obvious. But a vast number of people are of the opinion that intelligence is largely environmental. People even get angry at the idea of intelligence being heritable. Science tells us that this prejudice is false.

Science elucidates realities of life in a systematic way. Just because something may be subjectively "evident to anybody who has ever gone outside" does not render research on the topic meaningless.

[Anonymous No.3871697]

>>3871663

>Well, you can make the same argument against the founding of the U.S. "Hurr we make it now, but after I die, an evil person could take over."
I do. But that's beside the point. The point is, do we think that the goals of eugenics for the people in a hundred and a thousand years will be the same as ours? And every generation in between? Because that is how long it will take to show results, and only if it is going in the same direction, and only if it is implemented successfully at all times.

>You would have to prove that high IQ is linked to diseases (protip: highly intelligent people are just as, if not more, healthy than the populous). There are only rare instances in which diseases can increase IQ: torsion dystonia and Asperger's. Obviously we would take that into fucking account and not breed people with torsion dystonia or crippling Asperger's, regardless of their intelligence. You are assuming the administrators of this eugenics program would blindly breed people with high IQs without looking at other important traits (such as being handicapped).
I'm talking about big dog heart problems here. As we bred for bigger dogs, we inadvertently neglected breeding for big dog hearts. So now big dogs have heart problems, and truncated lives, and at all the points in between we had no idea what we were doing. So, when breeding for high intelligence, what is the equivalent pathology that we may be selecting for? I don't know. Do you?

[Anonymous No.3871702]

>>3871663


>That relies on future innovations, tons of assumptions, and numerous breakthroughs that have no indication of happening soon.
This is true. But we already have some of these innovations already. And it seems as though they will mature within a generation. At the very least, we need them before brute eugenics would be effective in a timely fashion. And if we have them for eugenics, we should be using them for gene therapy and genetic engineering instead.

By all means attempt to implement soft, minimal eugenics in our lifetime. I just can't imagine it seeming like anything but a waste of time in the face of what we'll be able to do when we actually understand genetics.

[Anonymous No.3871706]

>>3871697
>I'm talking about big dog heart problems here. As we bred for bigger dogs, we inadvertently neglected breeding for big dog hearts. So now big dogs have heart problems, and truncated lives, and at all the points in between we had no idea what we were doing. So, when breeding for high intelligence, what is the equivalent pathology that we may be selecting for? I don't know. Do you?

Uh, in 2011, we know a little bit more about genetics and heredity than Paleolithic dog breeders.

[Anonymous No.3871716]

RACISSSSSSSSSS

[Anonymous No.3871718]

>>3871706

I still contend that we know enough to be messing with human populations. And there's the issue of the timescales involved as well.

And big dog heart problems are still an issue. We just don't know what we don't know here. And bugs will take generations to identify and correct in the eugenics model. Whereas gene therapy and genetic engineering can identify and make such corrections in a single generation, at the absolute most.

[Anonymous No.3871724]

>>3871561

It's called robotics and machinery. Soon, we will not need dumbfucks to do the manual labor anymore.

[Anonymous No.3871735]

>>3871716

[Anonymous No.3871749]

http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/929/119/

What we're practicing right now is the opposite of Eugenics.

>The odds ratio favoring African Americans and Hispanics over whites was 576-to-1 and 504-to-1, respectively, using the SAT and class rank while controlling for other factors. Thus, the median composite SAT score for black admittees was 150 points lower than for whites and Asians, and the Latino median SAT score was 100 points lower. Using the ACT, the odds ratios climbed to 1330-to-1 and 1494-to-1, respectively, for African Americans and Hispanics over whites.

Discrimination is A-OK if it's against asians or europeans.

[Anonymous No.3871762]

>>3871749
I just saw that on /new/. /new/bro, are we?

[Anonymous No.3871782]

bump

[Anonymous No.3871790]

>>3871536
From a scientific standpoint, your conclusion missed out;
>"a more ACADEMICALLY successful society"

You also make the flaw of considering the brain and IQ as the only important genetic factor. We know from a great deal of experience that geeks tend to be unfit...
Then, from the point of view of gaining the best genes for every part of the body, we must then not exclude based soully on 1 characteristic.
Society is a gene machine producing new and failing variations, even with selective breeding it would most likly try to return to this nominal level.
Since selective breeding is pretty close to what we call normal breeding, and those that lack any significant characteristics atall still increase the chance of developing a new novel gene which is usfull, it also doesnt make sense to cull, unless you wish to promote genes which are successful in society now. Even though society may change and natural selection tends to weed out the ineffective.

Ultimately you must destroy the barriers which stop natural selection from working and at the same time allow the gene machine to producing more genes. What this means is that science must remove aberrations which consume resources and engender no benefits. One such group are the gays (see image).
Another group is the government, which is only necessary to resist other governments.

[Anonymous No.3871795]

>>3871749
wow that is racist
what does being african american have to do with having bad genetics?

[Anonymous No.3871804]

>>3871795
He didn't even imply that. He implied that unqualified candidates are getting preferential treatment (and consequently higher reproductive success) over qualified candidates.

[Anonymous No.3871808]

>>3871790
>>3871790
>>3871790
>>3871790

[Anonymous No.3871815]

Wouldn't the human genome favor greatly from interbreeding between races than breeeding the "perfect" human race? I know that mixed children have lower IQs than the smarter parents but the difference between 150 and 140 is like the difference between a 13 inch cock versus a 12 inch cock. and imagine someone with the smarts of an asian with the athleticism of an african. That my friends is the best of what the human race could offer, not what the stormfront /new/tards want out of eugenics

[Anonymous No.3871826]

troll. a good troll. 6.87/10.

[Anonymous No.3871827]

>>3871815

This is illogical. For example, if you have 10 whites and 20 blacks, the mix wouldn't be equal. The whites would be absorbed into the black gene-pool, not mixed.

For your magical wonderland to work, you'll need to exterminate everyone until there's an equal amount of each race. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.3871837]

>>3871815
No one in this thread is favoring simply one race. But inevitably, due to the statistical fact that Africans have lower IQs, East Asians and whites would be predominant majority. There would be many Africans who, after much eugenics, would parallel whites and Asians in intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3871845]

>>3871837

I think you mean east asians only, bro.

They outnumber whites, and they are smarter than us. Any eugenicist worth his salt would agree, the future is yellow.

[Anonymous No.3871846]

>>3871804
Then why not specifically reference IQ?
Asians and Africans span the entire range of IQs, and jobs/universities admit individuals, not races.
It's worth saying "people with low IQ unfairly get preferential treatment because larger IQ is better".
It's racist to say "black people have low IQ, black people shouldn't be fairly selected".

I can find the average IQ between two states and determine one may tend to have "inferior" genetics because one has on average lower IQ.

I can take two populations almost entirely randomly and point out average differences in SOME trait.

But it'd reasonably be outrageous to reward or punish people with different opportunities based on such an average because the statistics obviously don't always translate accurately into empirical evidence.

What makes sense it to judge individual humans on individual achievement. This is fair and accurate. You can go ahead and post quirky image macros about it but the alternative is unfair and prejudice.

[Anonymous No.3871850]

>>3871845
>Any eugenicist worth his salt would agree, the future is yellow.

They have lower birth rates than even whites, and some European countries are dropping in population. Japan has a serious pension crisis.

[Anonymous No.3871853]

>>3871850

That would be solved by a eugenics program, surely that would be the whole point.

[Anonymous No.3871867]

>>3871845

It depends, they have higher IQ average, but far less geniuses. Look at the curves.

[Anonymous No.3871868]

>>3871846
>because the statistics obviously don't always translate accurately into empirical evidence.

0/10

[Anonymous No.3871871]

This is stupid, the report is saying that the human brain has a heritable structure that allows for intelligence. We already know that brain structure serves as a baseline for intelligence, otherwise I'd be able to teach my cat to command the imperial armada.

And their conclusion is that 51% of human intelligence variation is genetic? What group of retards put this together...running from their logic 49% of intelligence variation could be environmental, which means no real confirmation or new information has been generated. Come back when you hit 95% genetic, THAT would be conclusive science.

[Anonymous No.3871873]

>>3871868
thanks for taking my comment way out of context.
why don't you reply to my whole post?

[Anonymous No.3871876]

>>3871845
>the future is yellow

Then let it be. But there is a sufficient amount of whites with high IQs such that whites will be around a long time, even in the harshest of eugenics programs.

[Anonymous No.3871878]

>>3871868

That IQ chart correlates perfectly with test scores(non-IQ ones) like PISA.

[Anonymous No.3871881]

>>3871871
>I can't accept the data

[Anonymous No.3871883]

>>3871867

Hardly relevant. A bump in general intelligence would be better than a flatter curve.

Perhaps a reserve of whites could be established aside from the main population. A kind of genius farm. Mainly Jewish stock, obviously.

[Anonymous No.3871884]

>>3871868
The statistical average IQ says NOTHING about the actual IQ of any one individual in that population.
Racial averages are not justifiable grounds for discrimination against individuals.

[Anonymous No.3871886]

>>3871878

[Anonymous No.3871888]

>>3871883

I disagree. More geniuses is more important than just have no dumbfucks. You can eradicate the dumbfucks, and walla, excellence all around.

[Anonymous No.3871897]

>>3871888

Well then you're wrong.

If you think a lower average is what you are looking for, with a few more genii, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.3871899]

>>3871883
>Jews
>good genes

BAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.3871902]

>>3871897
why does the US have a lower average IQ than most European nations yet far outproduce them scientifically.

[Anonymous No.3871905]

>>3871899

>Jews
>vastly over-represented in Nobel prizes and intellectual pursuits

Pick two.

[Anonymous No.3871907]

>>3871897
>genii
>mfw you think that using latin plurals instead of english makes you more intelligent

[Anonymous No.3871912]

>>3871899
Ashkenazi (as opposed to other Jewish ethnicities) Jews have the highest IQs in the world as a result of selective pressure into a few occupations, in medieval Europe.

[Anonymous No.3871913]

>>3871905
firstly, the nobel prize isn't an objective measure of achievement. it's a feel-good prize.

secondly, if we take achievement to be the ultimate objective, then there are many ethnic groups with lower IQs and a longer history of civilization achievement than Jews.

Jews wouldn't even be around today if it weren't for the kindness and humanitarianism of other ehtnic groups in europe and the mid east.

[Anonymous No.3871916]

>>3871912

They also have a lot of genetic diseases due to inbreeding.

[Anonymous No.3871924]

>>3871913

I think you mean to say;

The Jews wouldn't be around today if the bigotry and persecution of their neighbors had been backed up with competence.

[Anonymous No.3871930]

>>3871884
>The statistical average IQ says NOTHING about the actual IQ of any one individual in that population.

It does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKJ3KZYZBA4

Childrens' IQ tend to regress to the racial mean, regardless of the parent's IQ--high or low. That is, two whites with an average IQ of 80 between them will have a child with an IQ substantially closer to 100 (their racial mean). Two African Americans with an average IQ of 140 will have a child with an IQ substantially closer to around 85.

>Racial averages are not justifiable grounds for discrimination against individuals.

Nobody discriminates against individuals anyway.

Racial averages are still useful in policy decisions. Should we encourage the breeding of blacks and Hispanics (welfare) when that act will reduce the nation's average IQ?

[Anonymous No.3871931]

>>3871897

Explain this.

[Anonymous No.3871935]

>>3871912
I can divide any race into sub-groups with one having a higher IQ than another and claim different ancestries for each.
I can point out a family of super-intelligent Indians in South Asia and claim they have different ancestry.
But the average for their ethnic group is still lower.
If you want to take the average of semites, mixed or otherwise, please do so.

But I find it laughable that you have found such a convenient dividing line that Jews can divide their people into sub-categories and claim supremacy based on the highest IQs found (which exist in all races none the less) while judging all other races on average of the entire race.

The obvious attempt is to claim ethnic supremacy when, behold, there's fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.3871936]

OP deserves a Darwin Award

But let's be serious here.

In order to have a eugenics program, you'd have to convince enough people that it's a good idea.

To do that, you could either/and

-Educate the people and persuade them with "Greater Good" logic
-Force it through legislation
-Persuade them through incentives

And for what? A bell curve increase? I can think of several more productive things to do with, respectively, the charisma, political skill or money that those methods would require. You know, social programs, education or research that could have a more environmental effect on collective IQ? And what the hell is the point of all this when the Flynn Effect is already fucking documented?

I don't like eugenicists, let's get that much straight. You all had these opinions before even doing research, and are therefore invested in this option when there are several, easier alternatives that would achieve much the same result.

[Anonymous No.3871938]

no problem here as long as nigger-lovers admit that racism is okay.

[Anonymous No.3871940]

>>3871931

The guy making the graph was European.

[Anonymous No.3871945]

>>3871940

So because you don't like the outcome, it's suddenly not valid and made by a European?

[Anonymous No.3871951]

>>3871945

I'm saying that if someone made a graph that had Chinese civilisation so over-represented, I would assume they were Chinese.

[Anonymous No.3871960]

>>3871930
>It does.

that's nonsense, IQ varies undeniably between individuals within a race.

[Anonymous No.3871964]

>>3871945
samefaggotry

[Anonymous No.3871969]

>>3871951

But it's accurate? Who started the Industrial age, the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, etc? I'm not ignoring Chinese achievements, but you have to admit that the West had an enormous golden age, and pretty much conquered the world.

That's not bias, that's history.

[Anonymous No.3871970]

>>3871930
>Nobody discriminates against individuals anyway.
I think we're not living in the same world.
Also, what >>3871960 said.

[Anonymous No.3871973]

>>3871960
could you please respond to his points as opposed to acting like difference within a group is relevant?

[Anonymous No.3871979]

>>3871924
>The Jews wouldn't be around today if the bigotry and persecution of their neighbors had been backed up with competence.

the jews wouldn't be around today if their neighbors weren't driven by humanitarian instinct to some degree.
the jews would have survived under their own power if they diddn't have an inferior genome.

[Anonymous No.3871980]

This thread:

>eugenics bro, it would make things better

I find it a bit creepy that you'd want to slowly wipe out everyone but East Asians from the planet. They do rank highest on intelligence, after all. And it would be hard to argue that their societies are less capable of instituting eugenics than European derived societies, considering the Chinese have already done the pilot scheme.

>no because the whites are somehow special and it would be white people who would be around afterwards

[Anonymous No.3871983]

>>3871980
wrong:
>>3871867

[Anonymous No.3871984]

>>3871935
Askhenazim are an entirely different ethnic group from the Sephardim or Mizrahi. Non-Askhenazi Jews have much more Semetic (Middle Eastern) blood and lived mostly around Spain or the Middle East. Askhenazi Jews have substantial white European genetics. They also have very little Semetic blood, as quite a few of them descend from Khazars who never lived in the Middle East.

So the delineation of Ashkenazi Jews versus the rest is not arbitrarily based so as to make Jews look better, but rather simple ancestry.

[Anonymous No.3871985]

>>3871960

Obviously, but it's the collective we're talking about. Individuals are part of a collective.

[Anonymous No.3871989]

>>3871985
But saying "The average white IQ is 100" or "The average black IQ is 80" doesn't give you the information necessary to make judgments about any SPECIFIC individual's IQ who is a member of that collective average.

[Anonymous No.3871992]

>>3871973
Regression to the mean is nonsense, there exist the full range of IQs in all races today and they will exist next generation and the generation afterwards. You will not see next generation that all children conform to the mean.

Individuals will still be individuals and it will still be inaccurate and unfair to judge them by ancestral mean over personal achievement that you actually want select by.

Secondly, Rushton attends self-proclaimed white supremacist organizations, it stands to reason his views are biased.

[Anonymous No.3871994]

>>3871985
So what?
Knowing the average doesn't tell you the IQ of the individuals that make up that average.

durrr

[Anonymous No.3871996]

>>3871969

I do happen to agree with some of the substance of that.

But the chart is way out of proportion. Before 1500, Europe was a backwater. Before the industrial revolution, all of Europe was poorer than either China or India by any reasonable measure.

So geopolitical concerns are confounding the whole thing. In terms of intelligence, the East Asians have us beat. Now if we are using eugenics to select mainly for things that Europeans do best, then we have to admit that it is biased and arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.3871999]

>>3871969
Not the guy you're responding too.
Yes, but claiming that this is due to intelligence or "creativity". Science and The Enlightenment occurred in Europe so of course Europe/Western Society is going to be over represented than all the other civilizations in the world.

[Anonymous No.3872000]

>>3871983

On average. We addressed the issue of keeping some whites around for a genius farm.

[Anonymous No.3872002]

>>3871996
>Before 1500, Europe was a backwater. Before the industrial revolution, all of Europe was poorer than either China or India by any reasonable measure.

Are you forgetting Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece?

[Anonymous No.3872008]

>>3871984
You have failed to respond to my point.
Jews share a common ancestry and the average for their ethnic group should include all Jews if we are to group all "whites", "browns", "yellows", and "blacks" regardless of particular ancestry.

Again, I can find huge differences in the IQs of families from different ancestries in India but we would still group them into the same ethnic group.

You are drawing boundaries inaccurately for convenience when you only subdivide your own ancestral population.

[Anonymous No.3872019]

>>3872002

No. At that time, Europe could be considered to have pulled ahead of India. Then it fell behind even Mesopotamia centred societies for five hundred years. Then it had the good fortune of getting in on the ground floor of globalisation, and rode that to the top.

[Anonymous No.3872022]

>>3872002

>romans
>greeks
>white

They're closer to north african than they are to the modern white man. Fuck, they are closer to middle-easterners than they are to whites. Most they did was come up with ideas that stuck around in Europe.

[Anonymous No.3872024]

>>3872019
>good fortune
>implying it was the result of luck
Was it?

[Anonymous No.3872025]

>>3872019
>even Mesopotamia centred societies for five hundred years

There's a reason it was called the dark ages, you know. Everyone has had them, but they don't last forever.

[Anonymous No.3872027]

>>3871992
>Regression to the mean is nonsense

But it's not. It's a basic law of biology and statistics. Extreme traits regress to what is normal for an animal's species or sub-species (race).

[Anonymous No.3872030]

>>3872022

I think you mean, formed the basis for almost all modern European society.

[Anonymous No.3872031]

>>3872022
I hate the stormfag bullshit and ardently argue against the whole "white supremacy" idiocy, but just to play devil's advocate:
>They're closer to north african than they are to the modern white man. Fuck, they are closer to middle-easterners than they are to whites. Most they did was come up with ideas that stuck around in Europe.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.3872032]

>>3872022

They're part of Western civilization, and white implies of wholly European ancestry. Greeks and Romans are... you guessed it, in Europe. Indo-European.

[Anonymous No.3872037]

>>3871992
CONGRATULATIONS!!!

You have just lost all credibility! Amazing!

[Anonymous No.3872038]

>>3872022

Considering they formed the basis for all modern western thought, calling them more similar to North Africa which integrated with Arabic/Semetic culture makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.3872039]

>>3872022
They are very much white. Not as white as Nordics, but still very, very whtie.

[Anonymous No.3872040]

>>3872031
>>3872032

most stormfront fags wouldn't consider Italians and Greeks to be white, so by that logic they wouldn't consider Romans or ANcient Greeks white. They made shit whites liked and they ran with it.

[Anonymous No.3872045]

>>3872025

I'm not disputing that. Rome was a high point, not quite to China levels but high, followed by a low point, below even Mesopotamia, and then followed by a gradual progress until 1500-ish. And then it boosted ahead.

But for almost all of history, China has been where it's at. They had a Dark Age, several in fact, but now the latest one is passing, as you say.

[Anonymous No.3872046]

By OPs logic Ashkenazi Jews and Eastern Asians should be the only race left on the planet.

[Anonymous No.3872047]

>>3872027
You're not getting it. You're assuming that all people of one race are in one interconnected gene pool, in actuality they are not

[Anonymous No.3872048]

>>3872022

Come now, they were obviously European. Only Nordicists claim Greeks and Italians aren't. And those guys are insane.

[Anonymous No.3872049]

>>3872046
OP here. I don't see the problem with that.

[Anonymous No.3872051]

>>3872046

You're dividing Jews into a smaller group(Just ashkenazi instead of all the others). Just germans or Scandinavians(other whites exluded) have an IQ of around 109.

[Anonymous No.3872056]

>>3872048

Nigga you crazy.

[Anonymous No.3872057]

>>3872048
>implying that doesn't look like an average middle-eastern.

[Anonymous No.3872063]

>>3872048

That's like calling Turks/Ottoman empire eurpoean. And chritanity was concieved in modern day israel, why don't we consider them to be white if they made a bigger impact to eurpoean society than the greeks or romans have?

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872064]

Argument 1: Genetic Variation
Eugenics severely limits the gene pool. Eugenics decreases variation in the population. Why is variation good in a population? For a number of reasons, actually.
A. Populations with higher variation are less likely to go extinct because of some mutation in a virus or disease.
B. Populations with higher variation have lower inbreeding coefficients. Why is that good? Well, it increases heterozygosity. Why is that good? Consider heritable diseases. Heritable diseases occur because you have broken copies of a particular trait. Let's look at sickle cell anemia/trait, for example. In those areas where malaria is a problem, having sickle-shaped blood cells increases survival. But your body still needs to get enough oxygen. Those without any sickled cells are homozygous dominant. (They have two copies of the dominant form of the trait, which is to have regularly shaped blood cells.) Those with a large proportion of sickle shaped cells are homozygous recessive. (They have two copies of the recessive form of the trait, which is to have blood cells that are sickle shaped and don't effectively transport oxygen.) Heterozygotes (those individuals with one copy of each variant of the trait) are protected from malaria, though, while simultaneously getting enough blood to their organs to survive well.

[Anonymous No.3872065]

>>3872057

>implying middle-easterners aren't descended from Indo-European stock

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872066]

Argument 2: Nature Doesn't Value What Humans Value
Eugenics is selecting for traits that a certain portion of humans deem important. But that doesn't mean that nature gives a shit about those traits. In fact, those traits may be very harmful to the species as a whole, and then all of the humans will be wiped out.
Example:
There is a population of mice living on an island. There are 4 footed mice and 3 footed mice, and the number of feet are heritable (i.e., if your mom has 3 feet and your dad has 3 feet, you have 3 feet.) 4 footed mice run faster, and let's say the 3 footed mice have a better sense of smell, which is also heritable.
Scenario 1: 3 footed mice, with their superior sense of smell, can more readily detect better food sources, and decide that this makes them obviously superior. They decide to practice eugenics, and after a few generations, only 3 footed mice are left.
Scenario 2: No eugenics is practiced, and after a few generations, both 3 and 4 footed mice continue to exist.
SUDDENLY: predators have made it to the island. Only 4-footed mice can outrun them. Let's check on our mice in each scenario.
Scenario 1: no 4 footed mice. This population is now extinct.
Scenario 2: while there are no longer 3 footed mice, the population of the mice still exists through mice with 4 feet.

[Anonymous No.3872068]

>>3872057

I don't think you know many middle easterners.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872070]

Argument 3: Unforeseen Consequences
Our understanding of the human genome is limited, and eugenics can lead to unforeseen problems. Take selective breeding of dogs, for example.
Big dogs have hip dysplasia and heart defects, while small dogs often have knee problems.We bred them for one thing, and, in our ignorance of all the traits we were inadvertently selecting for, or those ancillary traits we were ignoring, they ended up being lemons. Given our similar levels of ignorance about human genetics, we have no idea what traits we'd actively encourage in the population that nature would never select for.
For another, more general example, undesirable trait X and undesirable trait Y migjt mix well and give use desirable trait Z.

Argument 4: Scientific Time Waster
Eugenics is a scientific time waster. For any effect to occur at all, it will take a significant time to see any improvement. This time could be better spent developing drugs and biomechanical enhancements - helping all of the species, regardless of individual traits.

[Anonymous No.3872071]

Breeding for intelligence can have zero downsides, because science can solve any problems that occur.

[Anonymous No.3872079]

>>3872068

[Anonymous No.3872077]

>>3872071

With genetic engineering. So invalidating the process of applying eugenics in the first place.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872080]

>>3872071
You don't seem to understand how complicated the human genome is, but for simplifying reasons, we'll just assume that in the mysterious future we know:
1) Every allele for every gene that exists, and exactly what each allele does.
2) What occurs with every combination of every allele for every gene that exists.
3) How every combination of every allele for every gene that exists also interacts with every environment (can include climate, diet, disease, parasites, etc.) that exists.

We're still missing the ability to predict the future. We will never be able to know:
1) Every future potential mutation of every allele for every gene that exists, and exactly what it does.
2) What occurs with every combination of future and present alleles for every gene that exists or will exist.
3) Every future environment, including every future mutation of every pathogen or parasite that will evolve.
4) How every every combination of future and present alleles for every gene that exists or will exist also interacts with every future environment that will occur.

[Anonymous No.3872081]

>>3872057

If you're talking about Arabs, that makes no sense. Arabs are Semetic, Romans and Ancient Greeks were Indo-European.

[Anonymous No.3872083]

>>3871886
Whites cofirmed for better at science

Asians confirmed for better at reading

conclusion : white master race

[Anonymous No.3872084]

>>3872068
I lived in Middle-East for a while.
>I watch turrorists on TV, must be all true

[Anonymous No.3872087]

>>3872051
>Just germans or Scandinavians(other whites exluded) have an IQ of around 109.

Not really. Germans have an average of 102. A little higher than the white mean, but not by much.

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

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872088]

Why are these things important?
Take malaria resistance, for example. Malaria resistance is caused by a mutated allele in determining the shape of red blood cells. This mutant allele causes the gene to code for a hydrophobic amino acid instead of a hydrophilic amino acid. This results in the red blood cell being sickled in shape. This shape is less effective at oxygen transfer. However, the shape also makes it an ineffective target with malaria. If malaria had never existed, this would seem like a detrimental trait, and a potential allele for elimination under eugenics. But had that occurred, if malaria then evolved after this variation was eliminated, there would be no genetic resistance against malaria in the human gene pool. Now, malaria isn't a particularly wide-spread disease in the modern world. But imagine if it was a more lethal strain of a bacterium or a virus, or a parasite that could spread easily. Suddenly, your entire population is infected. If this is also a particularly deadly strain, your entire population is dead.

>But we will have the medical technology to destroy pathogens
Even if you had the technology to destroy every type of pathogen (we still don't have a cure for viruses; only a preventative measure against viruses, although one is in the works at MIT called DRACO), it would still take time to:
1) Identify the mechanism of action of the pathogen.
2) Determine vulnerabilities of the pathogen.
3) Develop something which exploits the vulnerabilities of the pathogen.
4) Test this thing through all of the necessary trials. (Remember the swine flu scare? It still took months, even with being pushed through faster because of the emergency, for them to develop a preventative vaccine. Keep in mind, vaccines are not new technology; we know how they work and make them all the time)
5) Mass produce the cure.
6) Distribute the cure.

If this was a fast acting pathogen, technology would not be able to save you, or any other human.

[Anonymous No.3872092]

>>3871916
we will curve genetic disease within 30 years due to intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3872094]

>>3872084

I lived in Syria for 8 months years bro, and I'm not even American dumbfuck. Nice assumptions though, is there any more you'd like to try your hand at?

[Anonymous No.3872098]

>>3872064
>>3872066
>>3872070
>>3872080
dedicated troll

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872099]

>>3872092
See:
Argument 3 (>>3872070), and malaria

[Anonymous No.3872102]

>>3872087

That studies the entire nation, not just ethnic germans.

Ethnic germans are 82% of Germany. Lots of turks and other europeans there since the whole EU thing started.

[Anonymous No.3872103]

>>3872066
>>3872064
Human beings are the supreme unquestioned apex predators of the entire earth and as far as we can tell, the known universe.

Nothing you postulate as a problem cannot be readily solved by the application of intelligence and scientific knowledge/tools

[Anonymous No.3872106]

>>3872092
we will integrate high speed bullet trains into American infrastructure in 20 years due to the cost of materials to make high speed bullet trains becoming cheaper over time

[Anonymous No.3872113]

>>3872077
>the transistor, invalidating the vacuum tube in the first place

you can't genetic engineer intelligence, but you can breed intelligence, and genetic engineer out disease.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872118]

>>3872103>>3872088


See:>>3872080, >>3872088

[Anonymous No.3872119]

>>3872081
LOL ARAB. Fuck no. I meant Iran and Afghanistan.

[Anonymous No.3872120]

>>3872106
>bullet trains
except those are useless and nobody wants them

[Anonymous No.3872127]

>>3872120
in america*

japan could use them and they were useful, so they have them. because science

[Anonymous No.3872130]

>>3872119
>I meant Iran and Afghanistan.

Then you have something. They are both Indo-Europeans. But someone mentioned North Africa, which has no Indo-Europeans.

[Anonymous No.3872131]

>>3871886
PISA scores correlate better to strength of particular school systems than particular races.
If we control for environment to some reasonable degree, in terms of academic achievement some of the highest achieving ethnic groups in the US are neither white nor yellow.

[Anonymous No.3872132]

>>3872102
Fair enough, as long as you post a citation that ethnic Germans have an IQ as high as you claimed (109).

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872137]

>>3872113
>Can't do it with genetics
>but you can do it with breeding

Did you mean to say that? If so, please brush up on your basic biology in regards to selective breeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

[Anonymous No.3872144]

>>3872088
fear mongering, there has never been a single disease upon the face of the earth capable of such traits, espefically since lethality and detectability can only be increased at the cost of the other.

If such a disease were to occur it would have to either be very deadly and not contagious, or contagious and not very deadly. You can't have both

[Anonymous No.3872148]

>>3872130

I think you'll find that North Africa is populated by Europids, not any of the African races.

They are blacker, obviously, but that's just a possible side-effect of living at those latitudes.

[Anonymous No.3872150]

>>3872137
IQ is heritable.

[Anonymous No.3872152]

>>3872027
>Negroids, African decents are able to acquire more mates because of larger genitalia and physical prowess than Caucasians.
>"Durr, but I smarter on average so I'm better right xD!?"

No, you aren't as successful at procreating and you only pass on your genes to a handful of people, you are inferior according to the evolutionary theory that you use* to back up your virgin claims that you DESERVE an attractive female and not a black man.
*in the same way that extremists 'use' Islam. By omitting parts of it that go against your logic.

[Anonymous No.3872155]

>>3872130

>implying ancient greece/rome didn't have constant political and genetic contact with north africa

Greeks and Romans/Italians are mudbloods. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3872156]

>>3872152
>doesn't understand evolution

[Anonymous No.3872162]

>>3872113

You are absurd.

If intelligence has a genetic component, you can both breed for it and engineer it in.

If you know enough about the genetic factors that lead to intelligence to begin a fast and effective eugenics program, then you can simply insert the relevant genes and accomplish the task in a single step, rather than many generations hence.

[Anonymous No.3872164]

>>3872152
Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3872167]

>>3872148

I know they're not populated by Negroids, but they aren't populated by Indo-Europeans. Mostly semites/berbers.

[Anonymous No.3872173]

someone post the pic with black kids recolored to white skin with black characteristics

[Anonymous No.3872174]

>>3872150
you don't deserve an opinion on this subject, please stop posting

[Anonymous No.3872175]

>>3872167
source of that image.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872178]

>>3872144
>never happened

>The Plague
>SARS
>Ebola
>Smallpox

Okay. Sure

[Anonymous No.3872179]

>>3872167

They are part of the general Caucasian racial group though, just not Indo-Europeans.

[Anonymous No.3872172]

>>3872164

[citation needed]
Also nice numbers you have there.

[Anonymous No.3872182]

>>3872175

Use Tin-eye or google images and search the images, gives you sources.

[Anonymous No.3872184]

>>3872178
none of those were anywhere near the level that could even remotely threaten the "extinction" of humans as you so pose it.

and they occured when the understanding of microorganisms and the human body was literally wrong in about every way it could be.

>four humors

[Anonymous No.3872188]

>>3872167
>Human Language Families
>Caucasian
Wait what?

[Anonymous No.3872190]

>>3872172
>>3872172
>>3872172
>>3872172
The citation is right there at the bottom of the image.

>>3872173
Pic related.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872193]

>>3872184
>The plague
>Didn't threaten extinction

Once again, yeah, okay...

[Anonymous No.3872203]

>>3872188

Indo-European = / = Caucasian

It's a language/pan-ethnic group.

[Anonymous No.3872204]

>>3872193

>implying the plague was worldwide and not centered around europe
>lauging native americans.jpg

[Anonymous No.3872205]

>>3872193
>europe != the world
>medicine was completely wrong
>despite this they did fine

[Anonymous No.3872207]

>>3872190

Who ever said skin color was the only difference?

[Anonymous No.3872202]

>>3872184

Regardless of extinction threats, reduced diversity has immediate epidemic threats. Maybe a disease would not sweep through a throttled gene pool and wipe it out, but it would take down a lot more than it would a diverse gene pool.

Maybe this isn't a problem. I mean, we already outsource part of our immune system to our mental faculties, right?

[Anonymous No.3872214]

Oh yeah, there's way too many fucking humans on earth, so having some die is a-okay

[Anonymous No.3872216]

>>3872207

You must not know many people, do you?

>RACE IS ONLY SKIN DEEP
>WHY DO YOU BIGOTS ONLY SEE SKIN COLOR
>SKIN COLOR IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE!

[Anonymous No.3872219]

>>3872207
Liberals, Martin Luther King, anybody who says, "How can skin color affect intelligence?"

[Anonymous No.3872223]

ITT

[Anonymous No.3872228]

>>3872216
So you admit that you're arguing against a strawman.
Or at least a flesh-and-blood man that isn't present.

[Anonymous No.3872230]

>>3872167

You are saying that the peoples who arose in the western portion of Central Asia have certain superior qualities that their immediate ancestors, in Mesopotamia, do not. And that these superior qualities did not transfer during the thousands of years of interbreeding that occurred subsequently.

[Anonymous No.3872235]

>>3872216

I don't know any of those people, no.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872238]

>>3872204

>implying that it wasn't brought from invading forces from Asia and that the relative isolation of the people in europe didn't play a gigantic role in the isolation of the disease.

Do you realize how much more easily pathogens can spread around the world?

[Anonymous No.3872240]

>>3872223
This thread is so full of dried-up, overused strawmen I think it's going to spontaneously combust.

[Anonymous No.3872241]

Thread got derailed at the first mention of race.

IQ-based eugenics is not NECESSARILY about extinguishing races, even if it may in practice.

[Anonymous No.3872249]

>>3872223
nobody has claimed that there aren't innate differences between races different ethnic group of people, we are mainly contending whether Eugenics is a valid form of population control. That picture is completely unrelated to the topic at hand

[Anonymous No.3872250]

>>3872219

Skin color cannot, or at least, nobody has yet explained to me how it could.

There are genetic factors present. Though I think any scientific study would have it's work ahead of it to remove any confounding influences on the study of racial intelligence.

And ideologues have yet to convince me that I should decrease the granularity of my assessment of individuals to ignore relevant traits and focus on population norms instead.

[Anonymous No.3872256]

>>3872241

I fear I may have helped this downward spiral, jumping as I did at the chance to lead eugenics fags down the path to East Asian superiority, just to see if they had the strength of their convictions, or if they were actually convinced of the innate superiority of their race.

[Anonymous No.3872259]

>>3872164
You just proved my point. Africans may be less intelligent on average, but they also reproduce in greater numbers and are much more likely to get into a situation to reproduce due to increased aggressiveness, hormone levels, etc, etc. Therefore, they are superior to whites because they are more likely, and more frequently, to pass on their genetic lineage and have a greater impact in the overall genetic development of man.

>>3872156
Oh, care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.3872262]

>>3872250

to be honest, i judge based on the individual as well.

i'm just annoyed that it seems like people are scared to admit that blacks are generally less intelligent, and that it's mostly genetic.

[Anonymous No.3872263]

>>3872256

>trolls
>innate convictions to their argument, and not towards pissing people off

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872266]

>>3872205
>Did fine
>lost 1/3 of the population
>Were saved because of innate resistance caused by genes.
>Eugenics would decrease the probability of having this innate resistance.

(See page 4 of this:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gxa7jcVIR9MC&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=buboni
c+plague+origin&ots=9DMqZ23Ips&sig=GclKddczGomFsq4-Cye81ZyhnuY#v=onepage&q=resistance&am
p;f=false)

/sci/ why are you SO SLOW?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3872269]

>>3871536
It is a non-obvious point that smarter people will create a better society. It is obvious that eugenic policies can easily be misused to cause tangible harm.

[Anonymous No.3872273]

>>3872259
i'm not understanding how their reproducing more (thus making more of them) makes them superior.

it means they have a great chance of survival (until asians/whites fuck them over with weapons developed through higher intelligence), but that doesn't mean "superior".

[Anonymous No.3872277]

>>3872266
There was no such thing as science at the time.

the plague is easily cured with antibiotics, not even modern ones.

you might as well be arguing that eugenics will leave us vulnerable to tigers because smart people wont be as strong and able to fight off animals.

[Anonymous No.3872283]

>>3872277
this

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872285]

>>3872277
Science and medicine take time.
See: >>3872088

[Anonymous No.3872290]

>>3872285
good thing the rate of technology progress has been increasing exponentially

[Anonymous No.3872297]

>>3872273
well then why do people consider having higher intelligence makes some people superior? Just like a higher fertility rate it can either be very important or unimportant depending on the environmental conditions.

[Anonymous No.3872300]

>>3872259
Well shit guys i guess bacteria are the ultimate form of evolution because they reproduce like fucking crazy!

[Anonymous No.3872310]

>>3872300
Actually, I do believe ants and bacteria to be more ultimately successful life-forms than humans.

[Anonymous No.3872314]

>>3872300

Accept your overlord pathetic humans, BACTERIA SHALL DOMINATE THE WORLD! DESTROY ALL non-BACTERIAL LIFE FORMS!

[Anonymous No.3872315]

>>3872310
human beings have already erradicated some bacteria from existance, and that is with what extremely extremely small amount of our resources, intelligence and man power we devoted to it.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872316]

>>3872290

Did you read anything I said?
"Even if you had the technology to destroy every type of pathogen (we still don't have a cure for viruses; only a preventative measure against viruses, although one is in the works at MIT called DRACO), it would still take time to:
1) Identify the mechanism of action of the pathogen.
2) Determine vulnerabilities of the pathogen.
3) Develop something which exploits the vulnerabilities of the pathogen.
4) Test this thing through all of the necessary trials. (Remember the swine flu scare? It still took months, even with being pushed through faster because of the emergency, for them to develop a preventative vaccine. Keep in mind, vaccines are not new technology; we know how they work and make them all the time)
5) Mass produce the cure.
6) Distribute the cure."

[Anonymous No.3872317]

>>3872259
>Africans may be less intelligent on average, but they also reproduce in greater numbers and are much more likely to get into a situation to reproduce due to increased aggressiveness, hormone levels, etc, etc. Therefore, they are superior to whites

That's quite the non-sequitor you have.

[Anonymous No.3872318]

...Why is this eugenics thread still around?
...Why has it not been deleted?
Eugenics is stupid, misguided bullshit. Any reputable population geneticist could tell you that.

[Anonymous No.3872321]

>>3872316
again, if the disease is very deadly, we quarantine everyone who has it while this goes on

if it is very contagious, it can't be very deadly, because it would kill people who had it before they could spread it

[Anonymous No.3872324]

>>3872318
>...Why has it not been deleted?

Well let me guess. We're on a science board. And eugenics is part of science, no matter how much you disagree with it.

Deal w/ it.

[Anonymous No.3872325]

>>3872300
Bactria are able to survive in areas that are void of oxygen and can have extremely high resistance towards radiation. I truly do see bacteria being more successful and adaptable than humans

[Anonymous No.3872326]

>>3872315
>smallpox
>a bacterium

[Anonymous No.3872336]

>>3872324
>eugenics is part of science, no matter how much you disagree with it.
Keep telling yourself that moron.

[Anonymous No.3872337]

>>3872325
they can't do anything except survive. humans can invent and discover.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872343]

>>3872321
>if it is very contagious, it can't be very deadly, because it would kill people who had it before they could spread it

Are we going to argue in circles for the rest of the thread?
See:
>>3872144
>>3872178
>>3872193
>>3872202
>>3872204
>>3872205
>>3872238
>>3872266
>>3872277
>>3872285
>>3872316

And then are you going to go back to what was said in
>>3872144 ????

[Anonymous No.3872350]

>>3872343
yes because again, your referencing a pre-science disease, from the literal dark ages

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3872361]

>>3872350

Now we have graduated to this part of the discussion...
>>3872184
>>3872193
>>3872202
>>3872204
>>3872205
>>3872238
>>3872266
>>3872277
>>3872285
>>3872316

[Anonymous No.3872375]

guess we're done then, since infectious disease which could literally threaten extinction as you say (every, single, human being dieing, 100.000000000000000000%) doesn't happen often in human history and hasn't happened since the enlightenment

but seeing how organizations like the WHO and CDC stay right on top of any possible mutation, and the public freaks the fuck out about them (swine/avian/______ flu) i don't see these things being a threat to humans regardless of genetic resistance

[Anonymous No.3872408]

IS THIS MATH CLASS?

[Anonymous No.3872495]

>mfw Zoologist doesn't realize his arguments are in support of relatively eugenic practices in given the prospect of potential relatively dysgenic practices

[Anonymous No.3872885]

>>3872361
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn’t necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you’re making!

Now, there’s no need to thank me – I’m just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!