/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8217587]

What does /sci/ think of eugenics? Could we breed better humans?

[Anonymous No.8217591]

Yes. But not now.

[Anonymous No.8217626]

>>8217591
What about now?

[Anonymous No.8217633]

>>8217626
You didn't even ask how, so I assume you are entitled to an opinion. So you have created this thread so you can spout your dumb propaganda over here.
Take your dumb propaganda away

[Anonymous No.8217639]

>>8217587
If dogs are any indication of how eugenics work out no.

[Anonymous No.8217645]

>>8217633
>so I assume you are entitled to an opinion.
Why do people say this stupid, obvious, shit constantly.

Yes, they're mechanically entitled to their thoughts and beliefs. No, it doesn't have anything to do with you, you don't have to remind anyone or make it clear that you "get it" and are tolerant, you don't have a say in any of it, and you never will. Shut up.

Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.8217654]

>>8217587
Eugenics works just look at dogs. Sheep dogs and golden retrievers are much more intelligent than their ancestors due to genetic manipulation. To do eugenics in this current political climate SJWs need to stop being main-stream then this could be considered.

[Anonymous No.8217662]

>>8217645
I know some people know, but you must notice that there are people who think that anyone else can convince them, so they ask: can you convince me about x?, even though they don't actually want to get convinced subconsciously.

Do you understand now why did I write that?

[Anonymous No.8217671]

>>8217654
It is a shame how it is looked at so negatively, it has worked with nearly all plants and livestock, now it is associated with nazis.

[Anonymous No.8217673]

>>8217662
>>8217633

Are you autistic or just not mentally developed because you're under-aged? This board is about sharing facts/opinions/shitposts. It's that simple, and your brain couldn't comprehend this. Further, a correlation behind intelligence and seeing other people as equals (non-hierarchical) regarding opinions is positively correlated. Due to this the more you believe you should not listen to others unless they were publicly established to do so makes you a retard.

[Anonymous No.8217674]

>>8217662
>Do you understand now why did I write that?
Nope!

[Anonymous No.8217675]

>>8217671
Because segregation->social discrimination

[Anonymous No.8217683]

>>8217674
Sorry you couldn't understand that.
>>8217673
>all that bullshit
Did you "deduce" all of that crap from my post?
Keep trying brainlet.

[Anonymous No.8217688]

>>8217675
>segregation

u wot m8? Eugenics occurs mostly via snipping the undesirables' vans deferens (their balls).

[Anonymous No.8217690]

>>8217688
But these people want to breed. You are killing their freedom.

[Anonymous No.8217692]

>>8217688
The ultimate cucking.

Take note, cuckposter.
>>8217662

[Anonymous No.8217693]

>>8217683
154 IQ via Stanford-Binet with a 3.5 GPA in chemical engineering. What are your stats, faggot? My post deduced you being unintelligent by the purpose of your logical follies. Either you're under-aged or just simply mentally undeveloped.

[Anonymous No.8217700]

>>8217693
>pseudoscience
>eugenics thread
>chemical engineering
Are you dumb, or just a troll?
>>8217692
>cuck
Take your circlejerk buzzwords to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8217708]

>>8217700
>Posts an image of a homosexual male
>Can't even be openly married to a man
>"Wife" only pretends to be a woman

[Anonymous No.8217718]

>>8217654
You fucking imbecile fragalista. A lot of dog breeds have genetic defects, they are very domain dependent also.

[Anonymous No.8217741]

>>8217718
Only the ones who were made to look good.

[Anonymous No.8217745]

it will never catch on because it ends at deciding what should go on in bedrooms and the one thing liberals have actually acheived is making everything about sexual freedom which has more dysgenic outcomes as a result of assorted mating.

[Anonymous No.8217746]

>>8217654
>>8217671

>trying to justify eugenics by using dogs, farm livestock and plants as good examples

First of all they aren't humans.

Second those breeds are arguably freaks of nature that the majority of them wouldn't survive long in the wild without human intervention.

Third they have way shorter reproduction periods/ life spans making them easier to observe/ adjust their life cycles and are cheaper to maintain. A proper eugenics program for humans would be much more expensive in comparison.

You would be better off with sticking to genetic engineering and augmentation.

[Anonymous No.8217748]

>>8217746
>First of all they aren't humans.
not an argument

[Anonymous No.8217749]

>>8217746
Yeah but keep in mind that the current world is not what we were made for. We could breed humans to fit better into our world.

[Anonymous No.8217750]

>>8217748
>humans and not-humans matter equally
Nope. ;^)

[Anonymous No.8217753]

>>8217748

Actually it is an argument retard. If you are dead serious about a eugenics program for humans that last thing you should do is use the three biggest glass cannons of human influenced modifications as "good" examples.

[Anonymous No.8217759]

>>8217753
That was his second point, not the first. What I meant is that making statements as obvious as "humans aren't dogs" is condescending smartassery.

[Anonymous No.8217774]

>>8217759

Honestly with a topic like this you need to be condescending because the stakes are much higher. A fuck up in a eugenics program for dogs, livestock and plants is nothing compared to a fuck up in a eugenics program for humans.

[Anonymous No.8217775]

>>8217749
What if we are hit by a black swan you charlatan. Naive rationalism doesn't work.

Are you an economist in favour of centralization by any chance?

Top down planned design doesn't work as well as organic tinkering.

[Anonymous No.8217784]

>>8217774
Therefore, the optimal solution would be to have multiple groups doing eugenics with different objectives, with voluntary membership and giving the rejected people a chance in another group. Not fundamentally different from what is happening in an informal manner today (^:

[Anonymous No.8217788]

>>8217784
No. To reach that kind of segregation-mentality, 50+years/a war should happen.

The new eugenics program is based on genetic engineering and the futuristic knowledge of the brain.
The "selection" occurs after the conception is done. The optimal fetus is chosen.

[Anonymous No.8217789]

Op discovers cause of autism epidemic on this board. Discuss.

[Anonymous No.8217794]

>>8217775
>Top down planned design doesn't work as well as organic tinkering.
Greedy algorithms can at best land you at a local maximum. Evolution and free markets work only because the ones that get the short end of the random number generator are trampled over.

[Anonymous No.8217799]

>>8217794
Evolution also works at a reproductive level. Remember.

Mating isn't your r9k tier evolutionary psychology. A lot of it comes to compatability, namely of genes and the immume system.

[Anonymous No.8217819]

Another argument against eugenetics is that it could lead to what happens with GMOs: monopoly.

It is safer if we have genetically different humans.

One reason that the Amerindians were suspectable to disease was lack of genetic diversity.

[Svetovid No.8217824]

>>8217587
Would be good,if it were to be carefully supervised by actual scientists.

[Anonymous No.8217825]

>>8217819
I'd still think there should be some de facto social practice of it such as concerted marriages in absence of the culling humans avoid in civilization.

[Anonymous No.8217834]

>>8217587
>Could we breed better humans?
No not really. Doing it through breeding is pointless when there is a much better method out there, which is possible, but not today I suppose.

Just fiddle with the genome DNA and create better zygotes, controlled, you can introduce alleles you like, piece up a genome - this CAN happen and it's one of the ways we all can get displaced.

[Anonymous No.8217843]

>>8217825
>concerted marriages
May I ask how?

[Anonymous No.8217869]

>>8217843
Ask this a century ago when people knew next to nothing about genetics.

Nowadays it's all about genetic engineering, soon we'll be able to synthesize humans

It's not that complicated really, we have about 20k genes encoding for proteins and most of the DNA is just junk anyway. We're really close.

[Anonymous No.8217880]

I'm pretty sure that junk dna actually does stuff.

[Anonymous No.8217894]

>>8217880
most of our genome does nothing other than get inherited and possibly serve as a buffer for mutations, it's called junk for a reason

what matters is the functional parts, there is a finite number of those, and this number is small enough for us to grasp completely at some point.

[Anonymous No.8217918]

I don't trust what you say.

[Anonymous No.8217936]

>>8217880
I thought non coding sequences were there to serve as a shield for radiation so encoding
DNA is protected. And cell specilization.

[Anonymous No.8217941]

>>8217936
there's a difference between non-coding and the junk

non-coding be a gene promoter, that doesn't make it useless, the opposite really

i do think you have a point about junk protecting the coding parts, just adding bulk

[Anonymous No.8217949]

>>8217894
Hey, fuck you, alright?
Alright bud?

[Anonymous No.8217966]

>>8217949
why

you have more viral DNA(8%) than DNA that codes for proteins by the way

[Anonymous No.8217976]

Eugenics is altering existing humans. You're thinking of a similar subject which goes under a different name.

[Anonymous No.8219877]

>>8217654
Sleep tight, pupper