Eugenic science thread

[Anonymous No.4110498]

WHY WE NEED EUGENICS: As the likelihood of our survival looms even more precarious, we are in a need for intelligence now more than ever. Eugenics is a simple and highly effective way to increase the intelligence of the human species.

WHY EUGENICS WILL WORK: A 2011 genome-wide association study confirmed beyond all doubt that intelligence is substantially heritable and due to variation in genes, not environment. A major historical argument: "Eugenics will not work because intelligence is not in the genes or not real." A lot of money and academic careers have been devoted to the "intelligence is not heritable" crusade, but alas, 21st century genetics is a tough final boss.

doi:10.1038/mp.2011.85
www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201185a.html

"IQ tests don't measure anything." This is never accompanied by a citation, though very often by an anecdote about a kid in high school or by pointing out that Chris Langan's employment. Guess what? IQ actually reflects brain anatomy:

doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135655
loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf

WHY EUGENICS IS ADMONISHED: Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Hitler is evil. Hitler was racist. Therefore everything he represented is evil and racist. (I guess that would make vegetarians evil racists, too, eh?) We shouldn't devote much time to the trolls who squawk "hurr ur a Nazi," nor should we devote much time to its obvious logical failure.

HOW A NATION MAY IMPLEMENT EUGENICS: Individuals of all class, racial, gender, etc. groups will be required to take a battery of psychometric examinations in a similar way to the enforcement of the U.S. Census. We will stratify consequences by IQ range: mandatory sterilization for those with IQs below 90 (SD=15) as well as those with heritable mental/physical handicaps; forced gamete collection from those with IQs above 145 (3 sigma); for those between 115 and 145 exclusive, a certain amount of financial incentive will be provided per child produced.

[Anonymous No.4110518]

Can't see anything I disagree with here.

[Anonymous No.4110524]

sage for samefag

[Anonymous No.4110525]

>>4110498

How about instead of eugenics we just enslave the proletariat. They can breed all they want, all the more free labor for us alphas.

[Anonymous No.4110530]

>>4110525
>>4110525
>us alphas
lol nope

[Anonymous No.4110533]

WHY THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN: Most nations with the capability to do something like a eugenic program are democratic, first-world nations. In order for such a thing to happen, the public has to be convinced that it is in their best interest for a significant amount of the population to be sterilized, and for the other half to be forced to procreate. And you can say that we shouldn't listen to people who squawk "you're a Nazi," but a lot of people will say it, and a lot of people will believe it, and you'll be discredited regardless of whether or not you're right.

[Anonymous No.4110531]

>>4110525
They would rise up. Also, slavery is a lot more deplorable morally than giving people free vasectomies.

[Anonymous No.4110537]

>>4110498
>>oh look it's that thread again
Why don't we just use gene therapy instead of eugenics? Vertical gene transfer and conventional selective breeding is so 1800s.

>>forced gamete collection
I loled. BUT WHAT IF I WANT TO SELL MY SPERM ON THE GAMETE MARKET?

And if it's intelligence you want, why not use mandatory intelligence enhancement techniques on people with substandard intelligences.

And I think you are forgetting about the benefits of having an unintelligent under-class...

[Anonymous No.4110542]

Anyone who believe in Eugenics needs to be killed. Anyone who will find ways to increase production and living spaces cheaply needs to be hailed. Deal with it caste system believing nazi.

[Anonymous No.4110543]

>>4110531
>>implying you can't easily control an unintelligent proletariat like we already do.

[Anonymous No.4110544]

>>4110537
>Why don't we just use gene therapy instead of eugenics?

Doesn't exist. Even when we find all the genes for intelligence (10-20 years off), that won't grant us the ability to change them with gene therapy.

>And if it's intelligence you want, why not use mandatory intelligence enhancement techniques on people with substandard intelligences.

Doesn't exist either. Let me guess, you're a Singulitarian?

[Anonymous No.4110549]

>>4110542
>>Anyone who believe in Eugenics needs to be killed.

Well, I sure hope you aren't in the camp that believes "sterilization [free vasectomies] are evil." That would be quite hypocritical, no?

[Anonymous No.4110550]

>>4110542
>anyone who disagrees with me should be killed, those who agree with me are heroes
>calling someone else a Nazi

cool story bro

[Anonymous No.4110554]

>>4110498
Does OP also favor banning alcohol, banning unhealthy foods, and mandatory exercise programs?

These would all create a healthier more productive workforce today, not a hundred years in the future.

[Anonymous No.4110555]

>>4110498

TlDr:Ops Iq is under 110 which has lead to development of his inferiority complex that he tries to alleviate by thinking that his Dna maintains his value in the world.

[Anonymous No.4110561]

>>4110542
Thats like, poetic. Man.

[Anonymous No.4110566]

>>4110555
>TlDr:Ops Iq is under 110 which has lead to development of his inferiority complex that he tries to alleviate by thinking that his Dna maintains his value in the world.

Doesn't make much sense, logically or grammatically.

[Anonymous No.4110567]

If you speak from a standpoint of societal efficiency, then yes, Eugenics is valuable. If you speak from a standpoint of societal happiness, then Eugenics is still garbage.

I will always favor societal happiness over societal efficiency, unless societal efficiency threatens societal happiness.

[Anonymous No.4110569]

[Anonymous No.4110572]

>>4110566

What doesnt "make" much sense?

[Anonymous No.4110582]

>>4110567
So where in "societal happiness" does hordes of horny 80 IQ's fit?

What about all the suffering we all experience as a direct or tangential result of low IQ? Crime, divorce rates, drug abuse, inability to hold a job, number of out of wedlock children, to name a few, are all correlates of LOW IQ.

What about the pathetic existence of low IQ people? Imagine if you were fundamentally incapable of graduating American high school. Imagine that feel.

How does THIS contribute to societal happiness?

[Anonymous No.4110596]

>we are in a need for intelligence now more than ever

That's not a self-evident statement. But usually people who think intelligence is some sort of magical fairy that will solve each and every one problem humanity faces don't really understand where intelligence come from.

[Anonymous No.4110606]

>>4110582

>Crime, divorce rates, drug abuse, inability to hold a job, number of out of wedlock children

All of that is a result of your own impotence and inabillity to take responsibility for your life.

[Anonymous No.4110601]

>>4110596
>usually people who think intelligence is some sort of magical fairy that will solve each and every one problem humanity faces don't really understand where intelligence come from

Well...where do you think it comes from? And how is the origin of intelligence relevant?

[Anonymous No.4110607]

we'd have almost no black people then

[Anonymous No.4110609]

>>4110544
>>I DON'T KNOW HOW GENE THERAPY WORKS
then learn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

>>4110582
>>No way to increase intelligence
wrong
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2008/06/enhancement_of_intelligence_by.php

And you've certainly seen the nootropic threads now have you?

>>4110582
>>makes assertions and doesn't cite a single study
who has the low IQ now?

[Anonymous No.4110614]

>>4110582

>What about the pathetic existence of low IQ people?
>How does THIS contribute to societal happiness?

Why do you assume that their Iq determines their happiness?

[Anonymous No.4110617]

>>4110582
>So where in "societal happiness" does hordes of horny 80 IQ's fit?
I can understand why you think this is awful because all you care about is the increase of societal intelligence. But why, otherwise, do you give a shit?

>What about all the suffering we all experience as a direct or tangential result of low IQ? Crime, divorce rates, drug abuse, inability to hold a job, number of out of wedlock children, to name a few, are all correlates of LOW IQ.
Correlation does not imply causation, Mr. Eugenicist. I bet you can find many other factors that have the same correlation that are more compelling reasons for all of the above phenomena (poverty, e.g.).

>What about the pathetic existence of low IQ people? Imagine if you were fundamentally incapable of graduating American high school. Imagine that feel.
...so people don't give a shit about high school. Is it an argument of capability or desire? If you believe that people are incapable of finishing American High School, that is one thing. But it is ultimately possible that people are not motivated to succeed in high school.

>How does THIS contribute to societal happiness?
Most people prefer enjoying what life has to offer instead of trying to maximize societal efficiency via fascism and the micromanagement of the lives of others. Try pulling your head out of your ass and living a little. Yes, a lot of people are stupid, but if you are incapable of being happy because of this you have problems.

[Anonymous No.4110633]

>>4110609
>gene therapy
Yes, I know how it fucking works. MicroRNAs, interference RNA, etc., etc. Bottom line: We know a gene involved in breast cancer (BRCA2 for instance). Nobody has been able to successfully use gene therapy to any productive end in this or any other regard.

>http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2008/06/enhancement_of_intelligence_by.php
>dual n back
I know what that is, too. Dual n Back essentially trains you to do the psychometric test questions. That's like studying for an IQ test. IQ tests by definition become ineffective in their goal (measuring your intelligence) after you have trained or repeatedly practiced for them. You wouldn't take a chemistry midterm and then go back after it is graded and say, "Can I take the same test again?" without expecting the second test to not matter.

Mensa has stated that it is possible by such training to increase your IQ by up to 14 points IIRC. Here is an example of a book which teaches these tricks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MkYOAAAACAAJ&dq=raise+your+iq&hl=en&ei=KRffTrKEB-a42wXj
scCSBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAA

But this is irrelevant. It is obviously contrary to the purpose of psychometrics and is a red herring at best.

[Anonymous No.4110638]

Maybe we should just get rid of all the filthy niggers. It is in Africa that the IQs actually average below 90.

[Anonymous No.4110652]

>>4110617
>>What about all the suffering we all experience as a direct or tangential result of low IQ? Crime, divorce rates, drug abuse, inability to hold a job, number of out of wedlock children, to name a few, are all correlates of LOW IQ.
>Correlation does not imply causation, Mr. Eugenicist. I bet you can find many other factors that have the same correlation that are more compelling reasons for all of the above phenomena (poverty, e.g.).

No, correlation does not imply causation. You are right. However, more credence is lent to causation by the fact that most of these (esp. inability to hold a job) are linked to rational behavior, which is an integral component of intelligence.

What is interesting is that you immediately introduce another correlation/causation dilemma in the next sentence.
>poverty
What makes you think that poverty correlation=poverty caused it? You ignore the possibility that people might be in poverty at the outset because (in part) they carry low IQ alleles. The modern state of Western nations is as close as it has ever been to a meritocracy.

High IQ alleles --> high performance in school --> scholarship to university --> middle-upper class job --> wealth (or at least, not poverty).

Conversely:

Low IQ alleles --> low performance in school --> drop out of high school --> get addicted to drugs --> have children out of wedlock --> poverty --> collect welfare.

Is that not more likely than: Oppression from bourgeois --> low performance in school --> drop out of high school --> get addicted to drugs --> have children out of wedlock --> poverty --> collect welfare.

[Anonymous No.4110657]

>>4110498
A 2011 genome-wide association study confirmed beyond all doubt that intelligence is substantially heritable and due to variation in genes, not environment. A major historical argument: "Eugenics will not work because intelligence is not in the genes or not real." A lot of money and academic careers have been devoted to the "intelligence is not heritable" crusade, but alas, 21st century genetics is a tough final boss.

>Environment does in fact effect intelligence to a good degree. Flynn effect.

[Anonymous No.4110678]

>>4110657
Yes, environment is involved in intelligence, but has a lesser contribution. GENETICS is the major contributor.

>Flynn effect
I'm familiar with that, but it is of little consequence to eugenics. The Flynn effect represents the rise in IQ over several generations in industrialized countries due to better living conditions. This is due entirely to the environmental component of intelligence.

But this is inconsequential to eugenics because the Flynn effect has a limit. It obviously will not increase intelligence indefinitely. The theoretical limit for the Flynn effect for an individual is that individual's genetic potential. For instance: it has been shown that high nourishment during childhood could raise a child's final adult height. However, you cannot make a person with 5'4" genes grow to 6'0" no matter how much protein you feed him. The same concept applies to IQ. Since it is bound by the genes, the environmental component severely limits us in our ability to raise the aggregate intelligence of the population.

[Anonymous No.4110682]

>>4110657

>implying GWAS studies prove anything and don't just provide correlations between SNPs and certain phenotypic traits

[Anonymous No.4110696]

>>4110652
You're making the fatal assumption that intelligence (or, as you've put it, rationality) leads to financial success. This isn't necessarily true -- talk to some liberal arts majors that are having a tough time getting employed out of school. And, no, I will not accept that "studying humanities is a less intelligent pursuit than studying sciences" as an answer. Forces beyond intelligence dictate financial success -- why do you think unintelligent people can retain massive amounts of wealth?

This is also a separate point, but when do you propose that we stop eugenics? Because IQ is normalized to 100, in theory we would continue this process infinitely. What happens when an IQ of 85 correlates to the intelligence of, say, Isaac Newton? Do we still justify sterilization because they are less intelligent, or do you establish some minimum criterion for being "acceptable" to breed? I don't think relative intelligence should dictate reproductive permissions for this very reason: you limit the happiness of perfectly intelligent people based on something silly.

[Anonymous No.4110707]

>>4110498
>WHY WE NEED EUGENICS: As the likelihood of our survival looms even more precarious, we are in a need for intelligence now more than ever. Eugenics is a simple and highly effective way to increase the intelligence of the human species.
I do not care about our survival as a speeches. I notice high costs and high risk of abuse, and thus the decision is an easy one, against.

[Anonymous No.4110736]

>>4110696
>You're making the fatal assumption that intelligence (or, as you've put it, rationality) leads to financial success. This isn't necessarily true -- talk to some liberal arts majors that are having a tough time getting employed out of school. And, no, I will not accept that "studying humanities is a less intelligent pursuit than studying sciences" as an answer.

Humanities are not rigorous. Pic related for proof.

Even if it were rigorous, it is not useful. That's why they are unemployed. It also works the other way, though. Some people with zero education manage to become extremely successful financially. Education is a proxy for intelligence--but not always accurate.

>Forces beyond intelligence dictate financial success -- why do you think unintelligent people can retain massive amounts of wealth?

IQ cannot explain ALL of income differences, but it can explain a large portion.

>This is also a separate point, but when do you propose that we stop eugenics? Because IQ is normalized to 100, in theory we would continue this process infinitely. What happens when an IQ of 85 correlates to the intelligence of, say, Isaac Newton? Do we still justify sterilization because they are less intelligent, or do you establish some minimum criterion for being "acceptable" to breed? I don't think relative intelligence should dictate reproductive permissions for this very reason: you limit the happiness of perfectly intelligent people based on something silly.

We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[Anonymous No.4110744]

>>4110736
forgot pic

[Anonymous No.4110748]

Whenever I come across someone who posts about eugenics I think of basic psychology. This person is doing something in his own self interest, to create a world in which he is more able to survive/procreate.

You do not provide adequate evidence that a smarter world would be a better world.

Which is because in reality intelligence does not equate to biological success, adaptability does.

I Conclude, your the basis for argument for eugenics is unjustified and you preach eugenics because you are less adaptable than your less intelligent counter parts therefore you eliminating them from the competition.

[Prince of Light No.4110752]

Theres a major flaw with your theory OP, that the people with power in the united states are far too unaccountable to be put in charge of people's lives and deaths. Perhaps if the west wasn't so stupid this would be a plausible solution, but sadly it is.

Too bad that they'l probably do it anyway. Last i checked FEMA has their coffin liners ready.

[Anonymous No.4110761]

>>4110748
>Whenever I come across someone who posts about eugenics I think of basic psychology. This person is doing something in his own self interest, to create a world in which he is more able to survive/procreate.

Nice shot at psychobabbling, but you missed. I am in favor of eugenics because I am concerned about the future of the human race.

>You do not provide adequate evidence that a smarter world would be a better world.

Well, it's obvious. But here are some citations to start you off:

http://www.uni-graz[dot]at/pslgcwww/rindermann/publikationen/08IntEco.pdf

http://www.uni-graz[dot]at/pslgcwww/rindermann/publikationen/08IntPol.pdf

http://www.uni-graz[dot]at/pslgcwww/rindermann/publikationen/09IntAids.pdf

>Which is because in reality intelligence does not equate to biological success, adaptability does.
>adaptability

Do you mean that in an evolutionary sense or some convoluted psychobabbling sense?

>I Conclude, your the basis for argument for eugenics is unjustified and you preach eugenics because you are less adaptable than your less intelligent counter parts therefore you eliminating them from the competition.
>you
>you
>you
>implying this is about me or any one person in particular

Your attempts at psychoanalysis have failed. Go jack off to more Freud books.

[Anonymous No.4110785]

>>4110606
>All of that is a result of your own impotence and inabillity to take responsibility for your life.
Which correlates strongly with low IQ . . .

[Anonymous No.4110786]

>>4110785
Lol

[Anonymous No.4110787]

>>4110785
I see no obvious reason why this should be true. Do you have studies?

[Anonymous No.4110788]

>>4110657
>Flynn effect

[Anonymous No.4110789]

The OP has yet to convince me why I should care if we're all "smarter", that is have higher IQs. He hasn't demonstrated to me yet a substantial benefit.

[Anonymous No.4110792]

>>4110707
>I do not care about our survival as a speeches.
Butthurt that you'd be sterilized?

[Anonymous No.4110795]

>>4110792
>Thinks I'm mad.
Not terribly, no.

[Anonymous No.4110796]

>>4110748
>You do not provide adequate evidence that a smarter world would be a better world.
Sub-savanna Africa has a median IQ of 70.
QED.

[Anonymous No.4110797]

Benefit of killing and disposing of millions (or hundreds of millions of people): the population is smarter until we procreate.
The dis-benefit: we lose trillions.

The flipside: Put these idiotic niggers to work! We need high speed bullet trains jerry-rigged all across the planet of ours!
Benefit: Free labour!

Amirite?

[Anonymous No.4110800]

>>4110797
What is the benefit of making the population have a higher average IQ?

[Anonymous No.4110799]

>>4110785

Which implicates that Op is inferior human with undernormal Iq and hence must be terminated for the prosperity of humanity.
Op your blood will mark and pave the way to the Superior Humanity that you desired so much.

How ironic that to rescue Humanity of Idiocy Op had to kill himself.

[Anonymous No.4110802]

>>4110797
>Benefit of killing and disposing of millions (or hundreds of millions of people): the population is smarter until we procreate.

Strawman. Read the original post again. Sterilization (i.e., free vasectomies) were put forth as a proposal, NOT GENOCIDE.

[Anonymous No.4110803]

After sifting through your publication link (1 of 3 worked), I still do not agree that humanity would be better with eugenics.
regarding the studies... correlation does not mean causation, because wealthier countries have higher IQ does not mean the wealthiness was caused by high IQ

I mean adaptability as a biological function. aka introduced to a new situation -> adapt -> thrive

Your self deception is strong...
I doubt you would have this belief if you fell within the range of sterilization... Where is the empathy for thoes who do?

How about with your eugenics plan we sterilize all who don't measure up to some level of beauty, because face it humanity as a whole would rather look at beautiful people rather than ugly people? it would be beneficial to everyone.
where do you stop control over the gene pool?

I really want to know, you are very serious about what seems to me as a ridiculous idea.

[Anonymous No.4110811]

>>4110796
It's actually more like 82.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000634

But that's still pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.4110812]

From a completely economic perspective, poor people with presumable a low IQ create value which is transferred to the middle class with who create value which is transferred to the higher class who have a higher IQ.

If there was no more low IQ workers then what highly intelligent person would want to do all the jobs which are currently being held by low class and low IQ people?

Like it or not you depend on those people for your livelihood, for example your food(grown in rural areas by farmers). people with low IQ's are likely the foundation of many of the comforts which you enjoy/take advantage of.

[Anonymous No.4110818]

I have inherited some mental diseases, and "below-averageness" from my parents. I confronted them about these things, so it's not just "I'm spittin' blame".

I am severely depressed and was almost locked in a mental institution.

I support OP to an extent.

Eugenics per se is shit.

>dreams about testing people every 4 years for financial, social, cultural, artistic, and iq measurements to determine should an offspring be made, with the option of adoption always available, either from other families, orphanages or some vitro/surrogate mother tricks.

[Anonymous No.4110824]

>>4110812
>If there was no more low IQ workers then what highly intelligent person would want to do all the jobs which are currently being held by low class and low IQ people?

I have heard this argument before, and it is very flawed.

If a eugenics program is carried out, the aggregate IQ will rise uniformly. IQs will still be normally distributed, and we wouldn't strive to make everyone have the exact same IQ. There will be just as large a proportion of low IQ people post-eugenics as the proportion of low IQ people today. That means that although the farmers (assuming for the sake of example that they all have low IQs) of a post-eugenics world will be smarter than the farmers of today, they will still not make the cut for other higher-end professions, forcing them to work or starve.

It is also quite presumptuous to assume that more intelligent people are inherently averse to work or manual labor. We see a phenomena today of high IQ people avoiding manual labor because they can, because they have unique skills that allow them to survive without performing manual labor.

The common response to this problem is robots, but even if robots were impossible, eugenics would still have no detrimental effect on the economy in this way. If anything, it would actually improve the economy. Imagine the plumber of the future having an intelligence equivalent to a modern-day 130 IQ.

[Anonymous No.4110828]

>>4110498

1.Develop HyperIntellectual Humanity.
2.Exstinct UnderIntellectual Humanity.
3.Have HyperIntellectuals to work as Harvesters in the Fields and residual Mundane activities in which they would never realize nor apply their intellectual potential.
4.Doesnt realize how UnEconomical and unnecessary that is.
5.Appeals ironically to Intellect "we are in a need for intelligence now more than ever"

Yes Op if by "We" you mean yourself you are perfectly correct.

[Anonymous No.4110829]

>>4110824
Still not buying the argument that a more intelligent population will be more materially wealthy, and more importantly happier etc.

[Anonymous No.4110835]

>By 1982, government leaders such as then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew became worried by the demographic trend that the educated were less likely to marry and procreate than the uneducated, leading to the "dilution of innate human talent" in Singapore.[1] This concern drove various changes in policy that culminated in the Graduate Mothers' Scheme. Announced by then Minister for Education Goh Keng Swee on January 23, 1984, the policy gave the children of mothers with a university degree priority in the often heavily-competitive primary school placement and registration process over the lesser-educated.[2] This issue faced large outcry in the 1984 general elections and was scrapped by the incoming Minister of Education Tony Tan Keng Yam mid-1985.[3][4]

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

The East is rapidly accepting eugenics and biotechnology. If the West ends up too suicidally soft for it's own good, then so be it; let the Rome burn.

[Anonymous No.4110838]

An easier way to prevent intelligence lowering demographics is to just stop third world immigration.

[Anonymous No.4110846]

>>4110835

>This issue faced large outcry in the 1984 general elections and was scrapped by the incoming Minister of Education Tony Tan Keng Yam
>he East is rapidly accepting eugenics and biotechnology

What?

[Anonymous No.4110854]

>>4110811
>Draw-A-Man (DAM) test, Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), the Wechsler scales (WAIS & WISC), and several other IQ tests (but not the Raven's tests).
They cherry-picked the data.

American blacks have a median IQ of 85. Environmental effects(lack of malnutrition etc) and white admixture should be worth something on the order of ~15 points. If sub-Saharan Africans actually had a 82 median then either American blacks should preform much better or American blacks would have to have substantially lower genetic intelligence than sub-Saharan Africans.

[Anonymous No.4110858]

>>4110846
It was a greater step in the right direction than the entire West had taken since the 1950s.

This research group in China has been funded millions by the government to find the specific genes associated with intelligence:

https://www.cog-genomics.org/

[Anonymous No.4110862]

>>4110812
>who would do all the jobs which are currently being held by low class and low IQ people?
Robots.

[Anonymous No.4110867]

>>4110854
It wasn't cherry picking. They reviewed all the literature available and took the mean. Whereas the Lynn study which brought the number of 70 was just a single study. Read it.

Blacks in the U.S. only about 15% white admixture, so an increase of about 3 points would make sense.

>malnutrition
I have sincere doubt that individuals tested are those in starving war zones.

Anyway, this isn't about race and IQ, so let's not try to derail it.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4110875]

>ansty teens act out their tortured childhood and highschool life by putting their oppressors on the chopping block
i'm sorry, but that's really all that is going on here

[Anonymous No.4110902]

>>4110867
>single study
http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm

[Anonymous No.4110901]

OP is beyond retarded, he has no place talking about science.

Firstly, if Eugenics is meant to improve the actual competency of the population, why not have Eugenics on the basis of actual competence.

As in, instead of a secondary metric like a test, tell people they can have children based on their actual accomplishments, e.g.: their income.

Why not select for actual success, it seems awfully self-serving to pick and choose metrics that may or may not translate into greater contribution per unit energy.

[Anonymous No.4110906]

No, we should sterilize on the basis of how well people are able to improve their condition.

Otherwise you are not taking into consideration those people who have had fewer resources

Overall aptitude is best measured by the ability to improve ones life, not simply live a good life.

There must be emphasis on the efficiency of the individual. It doesn't matter what your IQ is if you require ridiculous attention and use ridiculous amounts of resources for some minimal gain in education or intellect.

[Anonymous No.4110913]

>As the likelihood of our survival looms even more precarious, we are in a need for intelligence now more than ever. Eugenics is a simple and highly effective way to increase the intelligence of the human species.

whatisthisidon'teven

[Anonymous No.4111751]

ITT:
Autistics and Aspergers want to eliminate the rest of the gene pool so that only THEY will survive. And also decide who will survive.

[Anonymous No.4111758]

>>4110498
IQ actually reflects brain anatomy:

Pix or it didn't happen.

[Anonymous No.4113249]

>>4110736
>Humanities are not rigorous. Pic related for proof.

Even if it were rigorous, it is not useful. That's why they are unemployed. It also works the other way, though. Some people with zero education manage to become extremely successful financially. Education is a proxy for intelligence--but not always accurate.

GRE scores? Humanities come with the intensity put into them. Writing a novel a la Murakami, Calvino, Fitzgerald, etc. is incredibly difficult because they pour so much effort into their work. Is it easy to be a stoner English major? Yes. Is it difficult to write masterpieces? Yes. Sure, sciences are equivalent to academic masochism, but it doesn't detract from the maximum intensity of the field.

Also, how can you say that entertainment (theatre, literature, etc.) isn't valuable? Retard aspie confirmed.

[Anonymous No.4113289]

>>4111751
>mfw when I just realized that kid had aspergers/autism.

@OP,
this doesn't work because mandatory sterilization is wrong.
also your posts assumes humans are in danger, when in reality the only thing that might be in danger is our feeble "civilization".
TL;DR
You want real change? Put some software engineers in 100% control.
Who else has experience managing large and complex systems.

[Anonymous No.4113475]

>>4113289
>child abuse is a human right

[Anonymous No.4113512]

>>4110498
Instead of donating a large amount of tax money to a forced census, why do we not spend it researching gene manipulation?

Instead of forcing people to be sterilized, why not make everyone a genius?

Of course there will be the many religious zealots who will refuse, and they shall be sterilized.

Who wouldn't want a smarter world as a whole?