/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5521901]

/sci/'s view on eugenetics?

[Anonymous No.5521903]

[Anonymous No.5521904]

Is that picture supposed to be ironic?

[Anonymous No.5521905]

BRETTY GOOD XDDDDD

[Anonymous No.5521907]

I think we'll be so technologically advanced in the not so far future that we can change dna to our liking anyway so it seems pointless.

[Anonymous No.5521910]

>>5521907

[Anonymous No.5521913]

I don't remember where I heard this but someone told me that before WWII (and the role eugenics played) the concept was held in respectable esteem in Europe.. Anyone know anything about this?

[Anonymous No.5521921]

>>5521913
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics

[Anonymous No.5521923]

The issue is how far we would be willing to take it. I support it as a personal practice in which people become conscious of their own and their partners genetic makeup and make intelligent decisions about procreation. For example, if there is high likelihood for a disease to arise then choose not to have kids, or if you want your child to be more athletic and intelligent then act accordingly. Of course for this to be effective people would need to discuss their genetics before committing to a relationship, because once you're married to someone you love you're going to have kids regardless.

However since the majority of the human population are brain dead ignorant plebs with no concept of what a gene is, practice of eugenics on such a limited scale would have no meaningful impact on improving the human gene pool as a whole. You will still have masses of ignorant religious retards (i.e., muslims) who will breed uncontrollably to shit up the gene pool.

The other thing to consider then would be to have a higher authority make these decisions and I would be whole-heartedly against this. Since it would obviously infringe on people's freedoms and there is no single concept of what the perfect genetic makeup is. And anyone who thinks otherwise is bound to be a huge cunt (ex: Hitler).

So until the time we become an intellectually-enlightened society as a whole (i.e., will never happen), we're stuck with shit mucking up our collective gene pool.

[Anonymous No.5521938]

>>5521901
>"pureblood"
>eugenic

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.5521947]

Too selfish for my tastes.

[Anonymous No.5521949]

>>5521923
I should add that with genome sequencing costs rapidly decreasing (you can have your genome sequenced for a couple of thousand dollars) the practice of responsible procreation is possible even today. The limiting factor is actually extracting meaning from the genome sequence. Sure we can identify rare disease risk genes, but determining the genetic bases of complex traits like intelligence, emotional and mental health, etc is still a ways away. Nevertheless, much information can be gained.

With such technology available to us, it is not difficult to conceive of a scenario where potential mates make this information available to each other . Much like you would discuss your job and hobbies as you get to know someone, you would talk about the ideal traits you would want for your children and assess whether mixing your gene pools could produce such offspring.

[Anonymous No.5521951]

>>5521923
How do muslims 'shit up' the gene pool any more than any other religion?
Are they stopping you from marrying who you want?
Does being religiou mean you have 'bad genes'?

[Anonymous No.5521960]

>>5521951
I didn't read the post you are quoting but I recently read that the rates of cousin on cousin incest is much, much higher in islamic countries and that they have much higher numbers birth defects and retards as a result

[Anonymous No.5521963]

>>5521951

You misunderstood. I don't mean that muslim people have shit genes. I meant that for eugenics as I envision it (individuals making procreation decisions based on awareness of their genetic makeup) to have a meaningful impact on the gene pool as a whole, the masses would need to become educated about genetics. Such practice among a very small minority would have no impact on the global human gene pool.

So it is not that muslims have inferior genes, but rather the lack of education in that culture would be the barrier. And of course I am just a racist but the same holds true for other religions as well. Half of Americans don't believe in evolution. So the problem is far reaching

[Anonymous No.5521966]

I think it is a good thing, to breed out deformities.

[Anonymous No.5521978]

>>5521901
Is that girl real? Is such a perfect thing even possible? Are we going to be able to make more of these girls in the future for our own pleasure?

[Anonymous No.5521994]

>>5521978

>>>/tv/ is the pedo board, bro.

[Anonymous No.5522022]

>>5521901
here comes another edgy nazi lelelele so suuuuuupppppprrrrrr eddddggggggyyyy XD XD XD XD

[Anonymous No.5522027]

>>5521951
>implying mudslimes don't interbreed like pigs
the amount of cousin marriages from muslim immigrant families is much higher than normal marriages in UK

[Anonymous No.5522033]

I don't think we know enough about our genes to purposefully tamper with them to a great extent. What if we find out that all the geniuses have schizo-genes after we breed all the people with schizo-genes out.

However, for very obvious genetic conditions that always produce awful problems like cystic fibrosis, maybe eugenics is okay?

Still, I have the firm belief that no one should be denied the life experience of producing a biological child.

It's a difficult problem.

[Anonymous No.5522041]

Flesh is weak, kill all meatbags ?

Yes, no ?

[Anonymous No.5522537]

>>5522022
I'm not I'm jewish

[Anonymous No.5522541]

>>>/pol/10151646

4chan has shown me that it is a requirement.

[Anonymous No.5522542]

>>5522033
This is true, several genes linked with certain diseases in homocygotes have great benefits to people in a determined environment (when heterocygote). One example would be cystic fibrosis. If you are a heterocygote, you are more resistant to enteric reltaed diseases.

[Anonymous No.5522546]

In 30 years baby insurance will let you correct genetic disorders in your baby's DNAs. In 50 years people will be able to completely customize their progeny.

[Anonymous No.5522551]

Eugenics is worthless. It won't produce results before genetic engineering

[Anonymous No.5522550]

>>5521901

I think the notion of spreading genes needs to go. I'd rather want my children to have the "happy gene" than to be "mine" because of my genetic material.

[Anonymous No.5522552]

>>5522551

You can at least make sure you dont get any hereditary diseases

[Anonymous No.5522555]

as a muslim I'd like to point out that Islam encourages marrying outside one's community to build blood ties between muslim people

[Anonymous No.5522579]

The only people who we should keep from reproducing are prisoners. I watched a doc on prison life and holy fuck those people are fucking retarded. This neo nazi sounded just as stupid as any gang banging nig.

Sure whites are generally better than blacks, but why should the well behaved blacks have to suffer and the violent hell's angels guy get to spread his seed like a virus. Punish the individual, and prison is where the worst of every group is conveniently located.

[Anonymous No.5522581]

>>5521901
Not a horrible idea in principle, but frequently in execution.

The problem stems from the fact that most people who discuss eugenics RARELY discuss it from an objective point of view... it's always "muh master race this" and "purge the ______s!" that.

[Anonymous No.5522582]

Alot of ugly people are smart, and viceversa.

[Anonymous No.5522585]

Necessary, but highly unlikely.

[Anonymous No.5522589]

We already use Eugenics. Prenatal scanning and medicine have an effect on gene pools.

[Anonymous No.5522598]

>>5522585
how is it at all necessary?

does someone's mere existence with downs syndrome, for example, somehow lower the quality of your own life?

there are countless trillions of organisms that are 'less productive' than humans; it's absolutely not necessary that we stop them from having their own children.

[Anonymous No.5522617]

>>5522598
It is if we are going to live responsibly with high technology. We are doing a poor job as it is, and the natural lottery surely isn't helping, but most people are not alright giving up these kind of rights, so it will probably never happen.

[Anonymous No.5522626]

>>5522617
>It is if we are going to live responsibly with high technology.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.5522642]

>>5522617
from what i see, it's most of the proponents of eugenics that are doing a good job in ensuring it will never be viewed as potentially beneficial (or at least too much of a risk).

its horribly botched history both in the theory which drove it and in its application do not help.

go on pseudoscience websites like AmRen. The members will swear by the scientifically informed nature of their views yet a cursory look thru the comments section will see loads of race baiting, immigration, government conspiracies, talk of the need to maintaining racial purity, which has fuck all to do with selecting for more desirable traits.

it's less people afraid of birth control, and more people with a legitimate fear of supremacists and handing people with a political agenda this sort of control over the bodies of other humans.

[Anonymous No.5522644]

>>5522626
If we want access to higher levels of comfort or conciousness, and I assume we don't want humanity to die out. We will not only need higher levels of technology, but higher levels of energy. We basically have the brains of plains apes that's till getting used to the idea of agriculture much less the industrial revolution. Our higher technology will correspondingly require more rationality, wisdom, and responisbility. Something that natural selection may not necessarily heed. This is a bitter pill to swallow.

We could by all rights be fine with this level of technology, but will we ever stop advancing now pandora's box is open.

[Anonymous No.5522648]

>>5522642
>with a legitimate fear of supremacists and handing people with a political agenda

This is probably the biggest problem how do we effectively initiate it without botching it up.

[Anonymous No.5522654]

>>5522644
following this line of logic, we're bound to run up against the limits of what any human brain is capable of at some point.

we'll have to embrace biological engineering at some point, or cybernetics or something of the sort.

having eugenics applied in the interim seems unnecessary.

and even if some humans can't be astronauts, for example, does not mean no humans can. Just because some people don't show the aptitude or desire for it doesn't mean somehow all human are exempt from a high-tech lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.5522659]

>>5522654

>we'll have to embrace biological engineering at some point, or cybernetics or something of the sort.

Which is my point why wait when we can begin genetic engineering now. We should be proactive not reactive.

>it doesn't mean somehow all human are exempt from a high-tech lifestyle.

I never meant to imply that, just that we would have to make these difficult decisions about our future.

Additionally, just because there is a genetically superior elite does not they would be immoral.

[Anonymous No.5522663]

>>5522659
>Additionally, just because there is a genetically superior elite does not they would be immoral.

'genetically superior' or not, there's a major issue of who should be given direct control over the bodies of some or all humans.
nobody's assuming anyone is immoral but it's not something we can leave to chance.
Why not educate people, put the data out there, correct misconceptions, and provide the tools to let individuals and families decide for themselves?

[Anonymous No.5522666]

>beautifullwhitegirlpureblood

obvious troll

[Anonymous No.5522674]

>>5522663

[Anonymous No.5522722]

>>5522663
If what you propose is allowed to go on for significant timescales, then evolution could have very negative consequences. In highly competetive environments, people would feel forced to take risks and think in the short term. Seeing these people rise to dominance, others would follow suit, trusting their genetic advancement to continue. Invariably, this would lead to a build-up of errors in the dominant paradigm, until the system collapses under the accumulated mass of cut corners.

That system, mind you, consists of billions of human lives.

How often will you Americans make the same damn mistake? Free markets inevitably fail - the tree of life is littered with braches which evolved themselves into extinction, luckily being replaced by entirely different phyla. You *need* a supreme regulatory agency to maintain quality. Mere information is not enough.

[Anonymous No.5522732]

>>5522722

>You *need* a supreme regulatory agency to maintain quality. Mere information is not enough.

you're arguing people are not smart enough to decide for themselves, which is ridiculous because there will be more diversity selected for if we leave it up to individual families then if we have one agency mandate a standard for everyone.

besides, every generation could be genetically distinct with reference to any allele; even if the traits of one generation would not be ideal for the next, that could be changed, in a matter of a single generation.

handing power to fewer and fewer people at the very top isn't necessarily any better than properly informing people and allowing them to choose on an individual basis.

[Anonymous No.5522747]

>>5522722
>How often will you Americans make the same damn mistake? Free markets inevitably fail
>Mere information is not enough.

It really astounds me that on a science board we have people this depressingly ignorant of economics. Actually, information *is* enough. Basic shit, Stiglitz (1986). Get off your God damned high horse and read some proofs.

[Anonymous No.5522751]

>>5521951
>Are they stopping you from marrying who you want?

Yes, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

[Anonymous No.5522767]

>>5522747
>raw information is enough for everybody to compete on the same terms
>Differing experiences and exposure to education plays no effect.
You can't just disseminate knowledge, in the sense of knowledge being information that a person comprehends to a degree that allows them to make perfectly self-interested decisions.
That's the sort of ability that needs to be fostered and developed by a much larger organization than many people have available to them from birth.

[Anonymous No.5522774]

>>5522747
pleb

[Anonymous No.5522784]

>>5522767
my only issue is, once you imbue an office of government with power, it's sometimes difficult to take that power away.
that power lasts from one administration to another, whatever the differences in agenda may be.

now, whether or not the office that micromanages what traits are selected for is the most competent or the least has no direct baring in how ethical, self-interested, or disposed to alternate agendas they may be.

it sounds like you're arguing against all individual humans deciding what's in their personal interest, in favor of a few individuals at the top, granted authority by everyone else, very well deciding what's in their personal interest and forcing everyone else to follow, merely because they are deemed more competent to decide these things. And history would argue that there's precedent for such abuse of power to occur.

[Anonymous No.5522788]

>>5522784
No, but I am saying that disseminating opportunities for people wreck their own genetic codes because they lack the foundation of knowledge and theory that others do is like spreading the authority to abuse, disinvest, torture, and kill those people to the general public and avoiding the difficult issues that usually arise from assigning blame for endemic abuse of human rights.
A system to allow people to maintain control of themselves and their future while preventing them from making decisions that are inherently ill-informed is obviously the ideal. Implementation is probably best done by willfully managing the rate at which human engineering occurs to match the pace that society can keep in trying to arrive at the capacity and responsibility so much direct control over the vessel of their existences.

[Anonymous No.5522910]

>>5521966
> I think it is a good thing, to breed out deformities.

Fine. Favor the melanin pigment. It is a scientific fact that melanin serves as a skin protector against harmful UV rays.

With the changing climate leading to hotter, dryer conditions, only those adapted to hot, dry climates (like Africa) are most suited to survive.

Therefore, by eugenics, only us black people should breed. Now where your white women at?

[Anonymous No.5522917]

>>5522910
>Implying only blacks should breed
>Implying you should then breed with white women

Nigger logic.

[Anonymous No.5522950]

That the people who believe it's a good idea are invariably the people who should be bred out of the gene pool.
Dunning Kruger effect for genetics

[Anonymous No.5522955]

Eugenics will be big when genetic engineering matures. Maybe even enforced by law, like vaccines are now.

Also, bans on incest are a form of eugenics that is accepted.