/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4021597]

Alright, we've all fantasized about making a viable scientific utopia run on robots and nuclear energy, and we've all realized the main reason this hasn't happened yet is because of education, and it's underlying genetic problem, practical IQ, which is why we support one form or another of Eugenics.

However, we've come across a stumbling block: While it's easy to find intelligent men, how do you identify enough intelligent women? Society does not allow 8/10 women to pursue intellectual pursuits, and 1/10 of those only do so because they are aspies.

How can we deal with this?

[Anonymous No.4021621]

>How can we deal with this?

with a sage

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.4021620]

>Alright, we've all fantasized about making a viable scientific utopia run on robots and nuclear energy, and we've all realized the main reason this hasn't happened yet is because of education
Awww yeah an awesome thread.

>and it's underlying genetic problem, practical IQ, which is why we support one form or another of Eugenics.
Aaaaaand I'm out.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021644]

You really shouldn't have done that.

EXACTLY WHY EUGENICS IS BAD
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.4021645]

>>4021620
What's so wrong with passive eugenics?
I understand the moral issue with killing off people, but there's nothing wrong with sterilization.
Ideally, we wouldn't have to do either one and just have cream of the crop from the start.

[Anonymous No.4021643]

The Anthropic Republic will ensure that young women are educated with the proper values and spirit. Being a vapid whore is bad for the species, no man wants a vapid, useless slut. We want strong, intelligent, and assertive women.

Our species is not strong so long as 50% of it can be considered a weaker sex.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021650]

>>4021644

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.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021661]

>>4021650

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.

(This is a work in progress. It's slow progress because I only ever feel motivated to work on it when there's a eugenics thread... addendums forthcoming.)

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.4021662]

>>4021645
Having an education system that doesn't suck would act as passive eugenics anyway. If nearly everyone thinks critically, those that are especially stupid are not selected for reproduction as even most women would then view them as mouthbreathing troglodytes.

If that's the type you meant, I have no quarrel with it.

[Anonymous No.4021664]

>>4021644
He has an excellent point.

The most I would support insomuch as eugenics goes is a program of universally available embryo selective IVF. We'd be able to maintain a sizable portion of the population (luddites, religious types, etc.) that have not had artificial selection acting upon them.

Granted, this could be disastrous if some kind of plague or unseen defect kills off enough of the selected population.

[Anonymous No.4021674]

>>4021662
I can get behind this.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021695]

>>4021661

>But if we select for IQ we will be able to cure all viruses/diseases/pathogens forever.

If you're making this argument, then 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.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021703]

>>4021662

Wait, what the hell is "passive eugenics" anyway? Because, to me, what you just described is genetic drift and/or a change in sexually selected for traits.

[Anonymous No.4021710]

>>4021644
>Argument 1: Genetic Variation
Agreed, which is why we just need a large enough pool to begin with. Besides, there is no 'real' variation on a fundamental level: all humans have the same genetic code, simply different active alleles. As for your concern about disease, we'll be advanced enough with good enough healthcare that it shouldn't be an issue due to quarantine and study.
>Argument 2: Nature Doesn't Value What Humans Value
>SUDDENLY: predators have made it to the island.
I'm sorry, but this arguments can't be applied to humanity without assuming ALIUMS.
>Argument 3: Unforeseen Consequences
I agree, but hopefully with a much much larger group of researchers and some actual FUNDING this will become less of an isue over a fairly short amount of time.
>Argument 4: Scientific Time Waster
Redundant. Not disregarding you point, I am simply stating that any long range plan is a time waster compared to some other thing.

>>4021662
I like your thinking
>>4021664
I like your thinking as well.

[Anonymous No.4021722]

>>4021703
>Wait, what the hell is "passive eugenics" anyway?
Any method of selective evolution that does NOT involve killing off the 'inferior' subjects.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.4021743]

>>4021722
I would also include no coercive method to induce reproduction in between desired specimens. Influencing some factors in the back row to induce a better-ordered and slowly improving genetic pool.

Mind you I think it'll be useless by the end of the century, what with transhumanism and all.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021748]

>>4021722

So, it would be any kind of selection for a gene/s that result/s in trait X, ignoring whatever variant of gene/s that results in undesired forms of trait X? Or would you still not allow those people to reproduce.

[Anonymous No.4021755]

Society enforces sexual dimorphism and people are set along a sociological gender path at birth.

Not so much different as boys getting education and girls not in the Medieval and past times.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021761]

>>4021743
See, and then a statement like that is confusing.
So, you're not going to stop people from reproducing who have undesired traits, either through killing or a ban on reproduction, and you're not going to encourage people to reproduce who have the desired traits?
That is not sounding like eugenics at all.
You're being very unclear.

[Anonymous No.4021770]

>>4021662
The issue here is that even the troglodytes have something to offer to the gene pool if they have managed to survive this far. The issue with eugenics is as always that what society perceives as favourable may not always be from a biological perspective. Also IQ is not entirely determined by the IQ of the parents, there are a lot of cases where two trailer trash parents produce a fairly intelligent child and vice versa two graduates produce a dumbass as their offspring. Eugenics is a flawed concept in general because of this.

[Anonymous No.4021772]

>>4021761
Oh, right, I'll expand:
One form of passive eugenics is sterilizing the unwanted specimens, ending their genetic path right then and there without killing them.
That should be about right.

[Anonymous No.4021776]

>>4021755
Fucking gender norms. Rigid adherence to that shit is holding everyone back.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021784]

>>4021710
Since (I hope) my addendum pt. 1 has pre-responded to your counter-arguments. (And no. It doesn't have to be ALIUMS. It could be pathogens that have yet to evolve.)

Addendum - pt. 2
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.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.4021787]

>>4021761
I am not for eugenics, I was merely suggesting that you can get intelligent-intelligent pairs more frequently if you have an education system that functions worth a damn, making especially stupid people less desirable as mates.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021794]

>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.4021814]

>>4021787
Ah, ok, then the only way that would work is if there was a way to encourage intelligents to have LOTS OF KIDS to keep pace with the idiots like pic related.

>>4021794
>If this was a fast acting pathogen, technology would not be able to save you, or any other human.
Two words: Education, Quarantine.
Education so people know what things to avoid and the symptoms, and voluntary or forced Quarantine.
That's the advantage of being both sapient and sentient: we can choose to remove ourselves for the sake of others.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021824]

>>4021787
Oh. I see. So, you're basically saying that you're for genetic drift?

>>4021772
For the first part of your post: already covered in argument 2. For some reason, people have a very difficult time understanding argument 2, seeing the example narrowly as opposed to broadly.
I'm going to steal your sentence to try to work it in so that people can stop getting confused about argument 2.
As for the other part of your discussion, IQ is about 50% heritable. (Haven't seen the "weekly poster" that reminds of this information, along with research papers in a while...)
Your version of "passive" eugenics is still the same thing as eugenics.
Inurdaes was confusing me, because apparently he was talking drift.>>4021770

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.4021828]

>>4021824
>Oh. I see. So, you're basically saying that you're for genetic drift?

I guess.

>>4021814
>Ah, ok, then the only way that would work is if there was a way to encourage intelligents to have LOTS OF KIDS to keep pace with the idiots like pic related.
Smart people would generally get biological immortality earlier than others, and also expand to space earlier.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021837]

>>4021814

You can't quarantine everyone with a runny nose. The initial symptoms can be benign. Or it could remain infectious for a decently long time before any detectable symptoms develop. It's not unheard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation_period

[Anonymous No.4021862]

>>4021837
Eh, in that case we hope for a large enough population that it'll pop up before we are all screwed.
Besides, any such disease would already be cataclysmic, we would just have a small chance at stopping it.

[FAGGATRON_3000 !!PEF7BVl3fW0 No.4021866]

This man has a degree in mathematics and computer science, he also worked as a rocket scientist for the navy.

The dream is dead.

[Anonymous No.4021873]

>>4021866
>The dream is dead.
Which dream?

[Anonymous No.4021879]

>>4021866

math ability doesn't imply wisdom, judgement, or philosophical or social acumen

[Anonymous No.4021886]

>>4021866
>rocket scientist for the navy
>computer systems analyst.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021889]

>>4021862
But you've got a much better chance at surviving a potential species extinction threat with a more varied gene pool than a constricted one.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2407137, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1382885, http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kQuHKsVYllwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA87&dq=geneti
c+variation+and+population+viability&ots=pHsg_Z4c_t&sig=JOONkoUyCvLPP3h2zKn1xSkwGI0#v=onepag
e&q=genetic%20variation%20and%20population%20viability&f=false

You've also got this compounded problem with IQ being polygenic (a trait controlled for/heavily mediated by multiple genes) (http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201185a.html)), so the potential for genetic linkage with other traits is higher, and would multiply the decrease in genetic variation by these other traits as well as just IQ.

[Anonymous No.4021926]

>>4021889
Alright then,

Still original question: How do we find enough females to fill up the starting genepool?

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4021940]

>>4021926
>misogynist detected

Serious question?

[Anonymous No.4021955]

>>4021940
Fairly serious. Maintenaning a base level of genetic intelligence is a must, and requires both partners to have these traits for it to have a high chance of passing on to the kids.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4022003]

>>4021955
Well, here's some kind of news article on the bullshit part of your earlier statement, which implies that there is a large disparity between men and women when it comes to IQ.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1234153/gender_differences_in_iq_smaller_than_believed/index.htm
l

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4022013]

>>4022003
Here's some wikipedia information as to why your implication is bulshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence#Intelligence

[Anonymous No.4022016]

>>4022003
I know about that already, which is why iI said
>However, we've come across a stumbling block: While it's easy to find intelligent men, how do you identify enough intelligent women? Society does not allow 8/10 women to pursue intellectual pursuits, and 1/10 of those only do so because they are aspies.

[Anonymous No.4022039]

>>4022003
>>4022013
I'm not implying mysoginy, I'm implying societal double standards make it difficult to find these high IQ women.
How do we get around this?

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.4022042]

>>4022016
Oh. Whoops. Thanks.
I saw "eugenics" and disregarded the rest of your post.

Which, still, I wouldn't recommend eugenics. Seriously, genetic engineering would be the way to go with something like this.
And, there are plenty of females in intellectual fields.
http://www.maa.org/columns/launchings/launchings_09_09.html
(scroll to women as % of total degrees)
Biological science, "physical science" (which I believe includes chemistry), and mathematics all have 40% or more of their majors as females. And last time I checked, physics, chemistry, math, and biology are not majors with few people within them.

[Anonymous No.4022057]

>>4022042
SO that's your preferred method of finding them?
Any idea how to hunt down the ones hidden among the populace? We need more than what are present in the academia for our gene pool, unless you intend to do regular withdrawals of persons from academia across the world.

[lnuardes No.4022074]

>>4021828
I'm you from the future! You have to prevent the singularity from happening!

[Anonymous No.4022194]

Intelligent women do NOT want intelligent men to reproduce: they want studs. Hot but not particularly smart studs.

"Intelligent" (wage-earning) men are good to be providers, for these women and their children. They are smart, after all: they know the studs are good just for sex & fun.

It's good you are a foreveralone, OP, otherwise...

[Anonymous No.4022198]

>>4022194
Intelligent men can ALSO be studs, you know.

[Anonymous No.4022211]

>>4022198

Sure, but not enough for OP's ridiculous scheme.

[Anonymous No.4022220]

>>4022211
That's something else then: Required level of fitness for all male subjects, to increase productivity. A healthy body is a healthy mind.

[Anonymous No.4022228]

>>4022220

>A healthy body is a healthy mind.

Nope.

[Anonymous No.4022236]

>>4022228
Source?

[Anonymous No.4022247]

>>4022236

>A healthy body is a healthy mind.

Source?

[Anonymous No.4022262]

>>4022247
The brain is part of the body. If the body is more efficient and fit, and fed effectively, it will in turn allow the brain to function at a greater capacity.

[Anonymous No.4022291]

>>4022262

Even if (IF) what you say happens to be true (source?), greater capacity is not the same as healthy. Once again, source for the heathy mind thing?

The burden of proof is on you, Anon, you know it and I know it.

[Anonymous No.4022343]

>>4022291
True, gimme a little bit. I was taking care of my nephew until now.

[Anonymous No.4022380]

>>4022291
http://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-disease/news/20070423/exercise-may-help-prevent-parkinsons
Here, a bit of evidence. Indicates that a healthy body will, if nothing else, keep the brain healthier for longer.

[Anonymous No.4022385]

>>4022380
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16271278
Here's something a little more tangible.
>Physical activity induces adult hippocampal neurogenesis.