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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 48 KB, 600x600, smiley%20face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5161699 No.5161699 [Reply] [Original]

I have a couple things I want to dispute, but I need people who are at least moderately intelligent to discuss these with.

There are 2 commonly believed things that I disagree with.
1. Suicide is bad
2. Inbreeding is bad

Now here's the basics of my arguments.

Suicide:
Most people who commit suicide are mentally unstable as well as emotionally damaged. We don't want people who are prone to that kind of behavior to be in the gene pool. Also, more than anything else, it's important to remember that it's THEIR life to do what they want with(not to mention they never asked for life to begin with). We spend way too much money "saving" people who want to kill themselves (which imo, creates a breeding ground for serial killers/rapists)

Inbreeding:
So, since we don't want to have derpy children we spread our genes around and infect as many other familie's gene pools as possible? Wouldn't it make more sense to inbreed like crazy for long periods of time? The families with really shitty genes would eventually cease to exist and the families that get lucky would be less prone to getting hereditary diseases. Then, we can spread our genes around again and see what other good genes are out there. Then, we repeat the cycle.

Discuss (aka. tell me how stupid I am for trying to think outside the box)

Pic unrelated (what does a person post for this type of thread?)

>> No.5161717

>>5161699
>Most people who commit suicide are mentally unstable as well as emotionally damaged.
BECAUSE suicide is bad
>We spend way too much money "saving" people who want to kill themselves
How much do we spend? do you have actual figures or are you guessing?
>which imo, creates a breeding ground for serial killers/rapists
I see nowhere where that 'logic' could come from

>> No.5161730

>>5161717
>How much do we spend?
I couldn't give you any exact figures, but I attempted suicide once and the bill they gave me was huge (over $10,000). I wasn't even there for very long either. And I think it's safe to say that most people in a situation like that are not going to be paying their medical bills(I sure as fuck didnt)

>I see nowhere where that logic could come from
Well, let's think about it. You have a person who is mentally unstable and emotionally damaged. They already feel like a failure in life, and now they have just failed at death as well. You don't think that would bring people a bit closer to their snapping point? Me, as well as everyone else I have known who has tried to commit suicide have all admitted to having extremely violent and psychotic thoughts. Honestly, it's a miracle we haven't acted on any of them yet.

>> No.5161734

I agree with both of the things you said but your arguments are clinically retarded. Are you a troll or just genuinely retarded? I seriously thought you were a moderately intelligent person till I read your arguments. Holy shit.

>> No.5161738

>>5161734
>your arguments are retarded but I won't give any counterargument or cite anything specific that I disagree with

>> No.5161748

>>5161738
Because you would have to be trolling to be this stupid

>> No.5161749

>>5161717
>BECAUSE suicide is bad
So you're trying to say that they are emotionally unstable because suicide is bad? Do you even understand what you just said?

>> No.5161753

>>5161748
>I'm such a winner that I have nothing better to do than troll people by calling them trolls! I'm a reverse troll gais!

>> No.5161754

>>5161749
>So you're trying to say that they are emotionally unstable because suicide is bad? Do you even understand what you just said?
No I'm saying that if suicide were good, it wouldn't be limited to crazy people.

>> No.5161761

>>5161754
I think it is good though. It's a natural part of evolution. It's part of how the human organism gets rid of defective product.

>> No.5161763

>>5161753
could you be anymore stupid

>> No.5161765

>>5161763
Yes

>> No.5161773

if someone thinks that he is a worthless piece of shit and wants to commit suicide i wont stop him. seriously, if someone gonna whine about life being hard and whatnot and bother other people with his whining instead of manning up and doing something to improve his life then please, hurry up and kill yourself.

>> No.5161770

>>5161763
You're the one who is too stupid to greentext any of the OP or give any kind of argument whatsoever.

>> No.5161783

>is bad
science doesn't deal with value judgements. The board you're looking for is /pol/ or /b/, in lacking of a humanities board

You get responses anyway because this board is shit

>> No.5161786

I saw something interesting on the bus today that was kind of curious. It was a suicide hotline or whatever. Now who pays for that operation to run? What's the reason to stop people from killing them self?

my guess is that we're looked at as consumers and they need us to milk for their own profits. any other ideas on this?

>> No.5161793

>>5161699
I mostly agree for suicide. A person should be able to do whatever they want with their own life. The only concern is to ensure that they really want to kill themself. It should be a rational decision as far as that is possible, and not one taken in the heat of an emotional moment.

As for inbreeding, you don't understand how recessive genes or population genetics work. Spreading out genes is generally a good idea as it reduces the likelihood of catastrophic loss of genetic diversity, which is necessary to cope with novel environmental conditions. Even families with the "best" genes will eventually end up with several debilitating genetic afflictions after generations of exclusive inbreeding.

But hey, don't let rationality get in the way of your edgy opinions.

>> No.5161796
File: 50 KB, 679x516, argument-pyramid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5161796

>>5161734
>>5161748
>>5161763

>> No.5161798

>>5161699
>> We don't want people who are prone to that kind of behavior to be in the gene pool

Ok... First things first. I aggree with the ideas you have said, yet there are certain limits. Let´s start with the reason why society believes Suicide or Inbreeding is bad. Both things came from the same source, which is religion. We all know how strong was the catholic church at some point, and we all know that the insinuate that Suicide or Inbreeding is bad. That caused for most people in the new a days to adopt their same position without even questioning it. It is common that if someone even thinks "outside the box" they will be liberal. So, ok, there we have our primary reson for why society thinks like that. Lets go to the next topic. Is suicide really bad? I believe there are some conditions where suicidal people can be "saved" and there are some condition where suicidal people are just there being tortured because people actually believe that it is a bad thing. If someone has lost their ability to walk, i believe that in that case, suicide would be accepted, and even more than that, Government should give the person access to it by medical ways. But when a teenage kid is just a little depressed because her boyfriend cheated on her. Then come on, we would be losing kids always. Because thats what teenage is. Most teenagers already though about it. I certainly did. In that case, if a little kid become depressed for fucking nothing, society needs to help her. That is only an example, but i think it applies for other cases.

>> No.5161809

>>5161798
cont.

Also. I know it exists Clinical depression, but still, i believe that in todays medicine, everything is linked to depression. "oh you are not eating well? it must be depression, take this medicine"... i mean, a lot of doctors dont even consider other things, they just keep throwing anti-deppresives to people.

Sorry for my improper english btw.

>> No.5161802

>>5161793
>not one taken in the heat of an emotional moment
Do you really want the types of people who are prone to making rash decisions like that to be an active part of society?

>> No.5161810

1. A 10 000$ bill is not much when compared to the money that was necessary to raise somebody and give him an education. Losing the 40 years of productivity an adult could have had is a pretty big loss for society.

2. Inbreeding has been observed in isolated animal and even human population. The effects are not as bad as commonly thought. You get a lot of genetic diseases at first. After a few generations, the genetic disease are removed by selection, and you get a pretty "efficient" phenotype.
However, it cause specialization and a loss of genetic diversity, which is bad for facing extraordinary conditions, and also doesn't favor evolution.

>> No.5161818

>>5161793
>you don't understand
That's why I brought my argument here. Please, give me a rundown of the basics and how they apply to the topic.

>> No.5161826

>>5161783
>You get responses anyway because this board is shit
Oh so sad but oh so true. We might just as well merge this board with /pol/ at this moment

>> No.5161828

>>5161810
>Losing the 40 years
Do you think it's all that likely that those 40 years would even be very productive for a person who otherwise would have killed themselves? I mean, I'm really just projecting here (because I want to kill myself and fuck my relatives), but I figure the odds of me ever contributing towards society as being pretty slim. I'm a loser. Everyone I've met who has attempted suicide is also a loser. Why would we want a bunch of losers?

>> No.5161840

>>5161828
Even moving crates has a lot of value. Most people don't just do 40 years of unemployment, even depressive ones.

>> No.5161846

>>5161840
>let's force this depressed guy who wants to die to stay alive so that he can move crates for us

lmao
I agree with you, but you made it sound funny

>> No.5161852

Because suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

We don't want people dying because a) it ends a life with infinite possibilities, b) it traumatizes people around them (which in turn causes more suicides) and c) we need to teach others, as a functioning society, to try to solve our problems rather than running away from the.

>"If you're going through hell, keep going."


Nevertheless, sage because OP is a troll.
>we should let people suicide because suicide prevention costs too much
>has attempted suicide and made the government pay for it
>thinks we can put a value on human life
>even if we did, paying $10000 is the least we could do to keep another human alive

OP, I went through a depression. I was a NEET+hikikomori for almost 3 years. I was very close to suicide on 4 occasions. You may have called me the scum of this Earth then, but after giving life a chance and facing my problems, I am now a STEM student, working hard to make it to grad school. I am evidence for the reason why suicides should be prevented.

Your inbreeding argument was way to stupid to discuss.

>> No.5161853

>>5161828
in most cases depression is not constant for a lifetime, plus we have magic pills that can handle many cases as well. There's plenty of reason to think that a person who wanted to kill themselves might live a productive life.

>> No.5161855

>>5161846
We should make a new party. The Inhuman Party.
>everyone who is not happy will be sent to a work camp

>> No.5161865

>>5161828
many people turn around their lives after they beat depression

>> No.5161876

>>5161855
we'd get so many crates moved like that

all that crate moving would end world hunger and cure cancer

>> No.5161882

>>5161876
>That's right Europe and China, how many crates did you move last year? Yeah that's what we thought.

>> No.5161892

>>5161802
Yep, I do. There is no reason that someone who might be prone to such a decision can't contribute meaningfully to society. One example that comes to mind is Boltzmann. He was so far ahead of his time that the significance of his work was not understood during his lifetime. Because of this, he was ridiculed and shunned by his peers and eventually committed suicide. Now, over a century later, his work is integral to several different fields of science.

There are other examples but I can't remember them right now. Go look them up if you need them

Really, you're just coming off as some fucking edgy adolescent who likes to spout out shit without giving it much thought.

>>5161818
It's your question, do your own homework. Start here then read up on recessive genes:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Inbreeding#Genetic_disorders

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Genetic_diversity

Incidentally, this is also one of the reasons that the current agricultural industry threatens the global food supply. The omnipresent use of only a few select cultivars has reduced the genetic diversity of natural crops considerably. If for whatever reason (global warming, emergence of a new parasite, etc), any of the major crops becomes threatened, we have very few alternatives.

too long, cont'd below

>> No.5161895

>>5161892
cont'd

Evolution requires diversity. If nothing makes it past a given selection point, that's the end of that species.

For humans, this isn't really a problem given how many there are, but excessive inbreeding will increase the number of recessive phenotypes and thus the overall health of the population, while also creating distinctive gene pools. The combination will render different populations more susceptible to extinction. It would take a long time, but overall that is what matters when discussion the consequences of breeding habits.

In the short-term scale, it doesn't really matter that much, so if you really want to go fuck your mother/sister, have fun.

>> No.5161898

>>5161802
Gallois took a pretty rash and stupid decision. I'm pretty glad he contributed though.

>> No.5161907

Oh yeah, there is another reason for the taboo about incest: it's one of the many ways (along with marriage and such) to reduce sexual competition.
We are one of the very few species (the only one depending on your criteria strictness) without a real estrous cycle for female.
Without all those rules for limiting sexual competition, society would have never worked in the first place.

>> No.5161910

The inbreeding argument is retarded. We can easily avoid a shitton of major genetic diseases with widespread and accessible genetic counseling. Why the fuck would you use a shitty roundabout method that that tries to control peoples' lives and relies on luck?

>> No.5161923

>Without all those rules for limiting sexual competition, society would have never worked in the first place.
[citation needed]

>> No.5161929

>>5161923
I take it you won't take french articles?

>> No.5161930

>>5161910
The point is that the families with extra shitty genes would cease to exist. What your talking about wouldn't help get rid of shitty genes, it would just make them less noticeable.

>> No.5161945

>>5161699
You really gonna try and bring up gene pool? Your logic is so bad it hurts my head. I hope you die and get your shitty genes off this world. Go to >>>pol.

...I think I just got trolled. 4/10 made me respond

>> No.5161948

>>5161892
Holy shit, you think you know two shits about genetics in a natural environment? Yeah, take your high school diploma and wikipedia and jump in traffic.

>> No.5161951

>>5161699
>Then, we can spread our genes around again and see what other good genes are out there. Then, we repeat the cycle.
You can't enforce an entire gene pool.

>> No.5161960

>>5161929
pour quoi pas?

>>5161930
>implying that all genes in a given family are bad
nope

If all of the genes were bad, they wouldn't make it past the embryonic stage of development. Everyone has some bad alleles and even some people with genetic diseases have some amazing alleles of different genes.

You're argument is basically the same as saying if someone handed you a bag of uncut precious stones, you would throw out the whole bag if even a couple of the stones were cracked.

Again, you're need to be edgy overshadows your rationality.

>> No.5161967

>>5161960
Here you go then:
http://www2.cnrs.fr/presse/journal/4725.htm

>> No.5161987

>>5161948
Nice argument. I found it very convincing.

Oh wait, no I didn't. Try again.

In particular, please explain how extensive inbreeding would not lead to a loss of genetic diversity and how recessive diseases would not emerge. If you cannot present an argument against the loss of genetic diversity in inbreeding sub-populations, explain how such populations would cope with the emergence of novel challenges such as new viruses and other pathogens that target e.g specific receptors for which there are no longer any allelic variation.

Do that without resorting to ad hominems. I bet you can't.

>> No.5162009

>suicide
Wastes all the resources spent raising that person and so on. Better for them to go on living and become a productive member of society.
>The families with really shitty genes would eventually cease to exist and the families that get lucky would be less prone to getting hereditary diseases.
No. The average human being has around 6 alleles that would be recessive if he had another one of them. Inbreeding will wreck the vast majority of families that try it. It also means skipping out on benefits of outbreeding like getting a more diverse MHC complex.

>> No.5162011

>>5161960
If that family had genes which are actually of value to the human race, they will almost certainly be present in other families and if not, they are likely to eventually come back through mutation.

>> No.5162028
File: 15 KB, 1119x539, hemophilia.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5162028

>>5161810
Right, that's why the Ptolemys, Habsburgs, and other famous inbred families had no genetic diseases whatsoever after a few generations.

>> No.5162039

>>5162009
Derp, that's 6 recessive alleles that would be lethal if he had another of them. Source: Peter Ellison said so.

>> No.5162042

>>5161967
Ok, it's a citation, but it's very speculative.

It assumes that without societal regulation of sexual behavior, we would all be promiscuous and that females would be sexually dominated to the point that any cooperation would be impossible. There is nothing to really support that and they even cite examples of functional promiscuous societies.

There is nothing unique about mating for life in humans either. There are several other species that do this.

Finally, the emergence of sexual liberation in various cultures has not led to a loss of cooperation among the sexes in those societies. In fact, the societies in which women enjoy the most sexual liberation appear to also be the ones in which they play the most prominent roles compared to more repressive societies.

Overall, I disagree with the article, even if some of the points may be valid.

>> No.5162049

>>5161948

lol

>> No.5162054

>>5162028
Yeah, but give it long enough and they would eventually be unable to reproduce or they would end up fine. It's like gambling. If you go for long enough you will for sure eventually lose everything. But there are ups and downs. It's just a matter of recognizing when to call it quits(when you're far enough ahead) and find other families in a similar position to yours.

>> No.5162085

>>5162054
Keep carving off small pieces of your skin long enough, and eventually you will either be unable to reproduce or you will end up fine. It's like gambling.

>> No.5162090

>>5162011
>If that family had genes which are actually of value to the human race, they will almost certainly be present in other families and if not, they are likely to eventually come back through mutation.

Nope. Evolution has no agenda. It does not always improve things. For example, unlike almost all other mammals, humans cannot produce their own vitamin C, despite it being essential for survival. We lost the necessary genes at some point and there is no reason to expect that they'll be coming back, unless we eventually engineer ourselves. There are other similar examples.

The advent of beneficial alleles through spontaneous mutation is rare. Even when it occurs, there must be some selective pressure to ensure that the gene spreads. Potentially beneficial genes may have no selection pressure in the absence of certain circumstances. For example, some mutations of the CCR5 receptor can conver resistance to HIV. In the absence of HIV, there is no selective pressure for those mutations. They may even be a negatively selected if the disruption of the normal CCR5 activity has any phenotypically deleterious effects.

The fitness of different genes depends on context and it is not until a selective pressure arises that their value can be understood.

>> No.5162098

>Doesn't know how a gene pool works

You dun' goofed, son. Also, stop fingering your sister, then having suicidal thoughts from guilt.