Could eugenics benefit humanity? If not, why so?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Could eugenics benefit humanity? If not, why so?
Could eugenics benefit humanity? If not, why so?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>Could eugenics benefit humanity?
How's it going so far?
>If not, why so?
Because it's demonstrably not working, obviously.
>How's it going so far?
with the amount our countries have gone to shit because we've had people forcing millions of genetically deficient people into them for decades, I'd say eugenics looks very appealing to me right now
if we'd actually gone for eugenics last century we could have had a moon colony by now instead of spending trillions on the eternal spic-nig cycle
>Covis Combine Memes
>6 Months After the End of Mask Mandates
Oh look, it's nothing!
>How's it going so far?
Pretty great I must say, the slave caste is unlikely to do anything nowadays!
Someone pls post the screenshot
>twerking mulatto as the perfected stage of societal evolution (causality decided)
screenshot, it always cracks me up.
>dysgenics is eugenics
>buh-buh-buh-but how can it be bad?
>my government program is literally called the HeckinGoodening of humanity
>it's in the name
>it's good by definition
LOL. The utter and final state of the NPC.
Does it promote fitness and health?
>Yes, put down the fork and lift
>Of course, we're healthy at every size
>"LOOK THEY SAY THEY'RE BOTH GOOD IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE AND SHIET"
>Does it promote fitness and health?
It will NEVER promote fitness and health.
Some eugenic ideas could be beneficial if they were applied at a large scale, yes.
>the israelites get an eugenics program
>straight up 14 words shit on the homepage
You don't know how much I envy them sometimes
No it couldn't. It turned agricultural specoes into genetic cripples that depend on antibiotics, vaccines, pesticides, and other chemicals and technology.
You can't enhance a species by breeding.
Why not?
Because if there was a clearly better combination it would prevail naturally. Any deletrious gene gets near immediatly removed if dominant, or stays as a recessive variant. Even if it may seem that some individuals are superior, the superior traits are either not genetic, or come with drawbacks that outweigh it. Better leave it alone. You could rephrase the picture as "Rotten seed will not sprout" - essentially, there is nothing really to worry about.
Why did humans succeed at selectively breeding crops? Can't we do the same to humans on mass scale?
we didn't succeed, we failed. Current frankenstein crops are less nutritious and are ruining the soil.
Yes, it's good to see others bring it up.
>You can't enhance a species by breeding.
You say that but being able to screen your fetus so that you can avoid birthing a kid that's gonna suffer from Sickle Cell is well worth it.
And you may ask, why not remove those who actually would develop the known recessive disease, if you only stop some needless suffering?
The answer is the rest of the genome. There may be (there almost certainly are) other alleles that make those homozygous to the sickle cell disease fare better than others. Those get selected for, but wouldn't if you removed the disease. This process not only makes the whole genome more redundant and robust, but eventually can make people evolve to the point where having sickle cells is not a severe enough drawback, and keep all the resistance that it provides.
>eventually can make people evolve to the point where having sickle cells is not a severe enough drawback, and keep all the resistance that it provides.
You don't know how Sickl Cell Trait works which has 1 copy. that gives some resistance but it fails because Malaria will get you sooner or later. full on Sickle Cell (2 copies) often kills people young. that's why in parts of Africa they have name for when a kid dies young to it.
People will screen for fetuses to make sure kids carry none of the trait because of how fricked sickle cell is.
>you say that but being able to screen your fetus so that you can avoid birthing a kid that's gonna suffer from Sickle Cell is well worth it.
you could just not have sex with a Black person instead
>It turned agricultural specoes into genetic cripples that depend on antibiotics, vaccines, pesticides, and other chemicals and technology.
damn i really miss those days without antibiotics and vaccines we had SOVL then nobody had antibiotics but nobody died anyway because we were sTRONg and men were real men and women were real women. we need to RETVRN to our roots
Why do the facts make you seethe so hard? Who is even disputing that civilization and the technological system are highly dysgenic? This has been known and widely discussed for centuries.
>no argument
>some projection about seething
Bro dude I read that RETVRN book and it told me that the technological system is highly dysgenic. Look at all these guys in picrel bro, such advanced lifeforms. They never entered stone age you know.
>muh widely known for centuries
This was only scientifically considered in the 19th century and was quickly laughed at. Now only people that take it serious are faile academic retvrngays who make youtube videos about linguistics and linux.
>Look at all these guys in picrel bro, such advanced lifeforms
>advaned lifeforms
who are you quoting, mongoloid?
The gays you posted have stronger immune systems than us, but nobody said shit about muh advanced lifeform which doesn't exist.
>it was laughed at, therefore it's a non-issue since they can't witness the consequences when they started it
Holy brain damage...
they definitely do not have stronger immune systems. Europeans have had so many plagues, because of cities, our immune systems are #1, unmatched. If we just meet these guys for 2min their whole tribe will go extinct.
>who are you quoting, mongoloid?
You. These people werent "turned into genetic cripples by antibiotics" as you said and are therefore advanced lifeforms.
>The gays you posted have stronger immune systems than us, but nobody said shit about muh advanced lifeform which doesn't exist.
>meet them for 2 minutes
>they all die
>Holy brain damage...
>still absolutely no argument
>same post
This board is in a sad state and full of poltards who consider science to be the doctored /misc/ infographs they saw and consider themselves scientists despite never seeing the inside of a lab. You need to have a nice day and never talk about science again.
>doctored /misc/ infographs
ah yes, those are bad, we need the original infographics, undoctored! They tell the truth!
Lmao please kys, whatever your opinion is (we will never know by reading your gibberish posts)
>whatever your opinion is (we will never know by reading your gibberish posts)
>still absolutely ZERO response to the refutation
response to what you absolute autist?! I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about.
Why do the facts make you seethe so hard? Who is even disputing that civilization and the technological system are highly dysgenic? This has been known and widely discussed for centuries.
Why do the facts make you seethe so hard? Who is even disputing that civilization and the technological system are highly dysgenic? This has been known and widely discussed for centuries.
no, because we don't know which version is good and which is bad. Same as AI: the more human input, the more limited the results. Only brute force trial and error WITHOUT human input delivers solid results. There are no short cuts, yet. Once we can simulate evolution and change genes exactly it may be possible.
This, but if we get to simulate evolution, eugenics won't be an appropiate term for the extent to which we could design computers/intelligent beings.
I'd argue that eugenics already occurs in the best way possible: in a decentralized way where each vehicle of genes/person tries to combine their genetic information with the best he/she can get. So eugenics is just sexual selection driven by the goverment, which would suck.
It's not inherently driven by a government
Then who?
I would argue that in the present day selection isn't really working. I'll assume it works well for who you reproduce with, but how much people reproduce seems to select for those too dumb/impulsive to use birth control and those religious enough to choose to have lots of children.
>Once we can simulate evolution and change genes exactly it may be possible.
probably closer than expectations
yes, we are almost there. All there is left for us to do is to actually understand the first thing about biology. Very close indeed.
Jokes aside, I think the real problem is changing the genes, not finding out what needs changing. Crispr is moving forward, however it will take another 20 years before its mainstream.
not with the snail speed we are moving at, one crispr trial every 6 months. Why no warp speed for this?
Only healthy sneed must be chucked.
Not really. We’re so close to in vitro gene manipulation that it’s kind of an obsolete technology.
http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2019/06/being-progressive-yesterday-embracing.html
The only shot this world had with eugenics was with turn of the century leftists. They’re gone now. Now instead they will use eugenics to dumb you down and make you a menial worker who lives in a pod, eats bugs, and is happy.
What we're going through rn is covert eugenics. From chicks only wanting 6 footers, LGBT ideas being pushed, houses becoming near impossible to own. If you have kids these days and have the means to raise them well (without much indoctrination) you're part of the 90th percentile.
>Could eugenics benefit humanity?
A total red herring. The relevant question isn't about "could it" but about "would it", and eugenics is one of the biggest weasel words in recent history: taken at face value, it's trivially true that genetically improving humanity will benefit humanity, but whether or not a measure is 'eugenic' can only be evaluated in retrospect.
Exactly, what if the government decided that an healthy human is a domisticated NPC?
>what if the government decided that an healthy human is a domisticated NPC?
>what if
They have already decided this. And don't forget: compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert. :^)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157295/#:~:text=In%20particular%2C%20a%20covert%20compulsory,an%20overt%20moral%20bioenhancement%20program.
what tf is moral bioenhancement?
>what tf is moral bioenhancement?
Literally programming you to be a goodgoi who eats ze bogz and gets ze shots.
>b-b-b-b-but it "works" on farm animals and dogs
Domestication has produced some of the most dysgenic, pitiful and unhealthy animals on this planet, which includes Dawkins and his followers.
Horses are better. Because they are chosen to be better
Dogs are shite because they are chosen that way.
We need strong horses, but cute dogs. We get strong horses, but we get cute dogs that are weak. You just change your priorities. If we needed stronger dogs, we would make them easily.
moron.
it doesn't work in dogs at all. All designer dogs are dysgenic freaks, barely able to breathe. How is conscious selection working out for Arabs, israelites and Amish? Oh they are all freaks who barely can reproduce?
The strong dogs are all mutts. What a moron.
>The strong dogs are all mutts
They really aren't. The whole "mixed dogs do better then pure's" only occurs if the individual pure dog in question was badly bred (not to official standards). When new breeds are made by mixing of older ones, they ALWAYS filtered and selected the dogs that operated and did better then the others in it's litter at the task they are designated to do.
>They really aren't. The whole "mixed dogs do better then pure's" only occurs if the individual pure dog in question was badly bred (not to official standards).
No, it's virtually universal.
No. It doesn't matter at what point you make the selection. It just isn't possible and you're ruining everyone's health. The best thing you could POSSIBLY do is to pair the individuals such so that the chance of heterozygous traits is maximized, but I believe that's how mutual attraction works anyway, so...
>No, it's virtually universal.
It's not. Many don't find a useful heterosis. In general, studies do not provide definitive proof of hybrid vigor in dogs. This is largely due to the unknown heritage of most mixed breeds mutts used. Results vary wildly, with some studies showing benefit and others finding the mixed breed dogs to be more prone to genetic conditions
Just to illustrate how extreme the damage is:
African Swine fever completely devastates pig stocks to the point that there are or were severe shortages, as it has killed hundreds of million pigs is only known to have killed perhaps a couple thousand wild pigs. (hundreds of thousands are hunted annually)
That is actually due to Pigs living in unsanitary conditions in factory farms.
No, it's because the animals are unhealthy as frick due to the breeding.
>You don't know how Sickl Cell Trait works which has 1 copy.
No you didn't understand my argument. I mean even those with full two copies fare better or worse depending on the rest of their genome. This is how you get evolution that is not just cosmetic changes. The rest of the body evolves to not make the sickle cells a problem as some with the sickle cell disease survive better than others, until you get to the point where the resistant sickle red blood cells can take over entirely over the original, vulnerable red blood cells, as it no longer means severe enough impediment and it becomes the new default. When you screen embryos to remove it, this won't happen. When you breed animals so that you remove traits like that, which do cause some impediment, but also benefits that outweigh it, you get for example superpigs that later die en masse of an otherwise unremarkable disease.
No as above. It isn't only about hybrid vigor, but the fact that "better genes" didn't take over very likely means that they are worse in some other aspect that is more important, otherwise you wouldn't have to select for them artificialy, but they would prevail naturally.
I'm sorry for complaining again, but the way posting works on this site is really shitty. Why do you have to do all the editing inside a tiny, four line window?
lol dog breeding practices are the antithesis of eugenics. yeh let's interbreed a lineage into oblivion, you think that's what eugenics is?
Depends on the breed.
Yes, if done properly. It has never been done properly or even attempted to be done properly.
Most of the work comes in aborting fetuses if they present issues and giving the mom nutrition. That does nearly all the work and is cheap to do.
t. actual morons who dont know what eugenics means
It doesnt mean forced sterilization or selective breeding, those are TYPES of eugenics
Leftist freaks have ruined the discussion and made every mention of eugenics be about racism and murder
Eugenics is a broad term for anything that improves the genetics of the population
Go watch Gattaca if you want to see a type of liberal eugenics
>Eugenics is a broad term for anything that improves the genetics of the population
Doesn't matter, as it's not possible for reasons that I described above. (
)
We can't decide which traits are good; we can't measure them.
For a plant, we just want its fruits big and tasty.
>Could eugenics benefit humanity?
Humanity? No, it would likely destroy humanity. But it would definitely benefit whomever is running the program. Short term.
We could realistically perform eugenics just by sterilizing everybody who doesn't graduate college.
No
Because blindly breeding shit is stupid. Genetic engineering is the future.
No because it assumes we know which traits will be advantageous going into the future. We simply can't predict how the environment will change.
You simply can have negative eugenics. If you know which traits are negative ie Down syndrome, … then you can just try to breed it out. Just have policy that indirectly gives this result.
so what are you saying moron? The problem is down people breeding? Because thats not the reason down exists.
If you want humanity to be able to adapt to any change you should want à eugenics program that aims at increasing diversity.
Eugenics could potentially be used to abolish suffering entirely.
http://geniusfamine.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-genius-famine-why-we-need-geniuses.html
If you want actual eugenics you have to think about religion and smart educated women having twenty children
>educated woman
>any children at all
Anon...
Yes anon, it is doable.
The problem is feminism and other highly promoted ideologies are antinataliist.
Yes but who told women they should or even could be educated? The problem starts with education, the first move of the feminists.
Women of the past were educated appropriately it made them more capable as mothers. there has to be a point to work with, female fertility is positively correlated with religiousness so there is a way
I think female education is fine, but its just moronic to happen exactly when the woman is most fertile and have her go through endless miscarriges at 42 and end up with an autistic single freak-child. All that just so she could make mediocre marketing powerpoints, not even good ones.
Best solution would be, study what you want, but not between 18 and 35.
Camille Paglia put forth the idea that women should earn a deffered pacement to be used after she's had children
It's a good idea which is why ~~*they*~~ will never mention it
that would be a good idea, they won't do it though. Why produce meat locally when it can just be imported cheaply while some third world country foots the bill?
>antinatalist
you don't know the first thing about antinatalism if you say it like that. the correct term is childfree.
antinatalism is a philosophy.
Yes but it's likely not with the cost of mass murder/sterilization. You'd need gene editing to be reliable enough to safely use on people, and we're not there yet.
You know they'd just breed a subservient worker class and insist their own elite genes be unaltered.
I support soft positive eugenics. and a social system that supports actually good moral people.
"Eugenics" were called the patriarchy but we lost it. The social hierarchy was made to select the best men and garantee them more power over the others, you don't need anything more complicated than that for eugenics.
Patriarchy sucks. Matriarchy is better.
No.
You've never presented any arguments suggesting that a matriarchy is better.
Absolutely and its beyond moronic that we dont pracise some form of eugenics. The word has become associated with nazis thats why nobody does it anymore, even though Sweden had it up until the 90s and it clearly worked very well.
Yes, by moving all focus into making machines entirely self-sufficient. Then going extinct.
I remember something about how the genes for microcephally are positively correlated with intelligence between populations due to how they boost the immune system
It'll always be easier to engineer for strength and beauty than it will for intelligence. That, and human civilizations never survive long enough before collapsing to keep policies in place to raise IQ that would require thousands of years to have any meaningful impact population wide.
we are to stupid to know if optimizing for intelligence is even a god idea. Imagine a species of ultra intelligent autist incels. This is not going to work out long term.
>Imagine a species of ultra intelligent autist incels. This is not going to work out long term.
wanna bet?
Well what is the current fertility rate of intelligent (so male) autists? Oh its 0? Well, we had a good run...
It's because they are surrounded by normie monkeys.
How did humans select for intelligence this far without going full autismo?
>successful traders get money and frick b***hes
>autism repels both money and b***hes
Obviously it was advantageous to have some intelligence. All animals have selected for more intelligence. A rat is more intelligent than any dinosaur.
However we don't know if evolution is iq-maxing or if simply some iq turned out to be good, but anymore will turn out to be bad.
>Imagine a species of ultra intelligent autist incels.
>Japan
Birthrates are low but they're doing ok.
>fertility rate 1
they are not doing ok, they will go extinct in 2 generations
The british systrematically culled out their most violent and unstable through execution of criminals and deportation to australia for centuries now look at them...