What could have been.

Oh well, shit happened and we have to deal with it.

Natural selection is a process, not an end to be lusted after. Stop being a faggot.

Eugenics was already on the decline when Hitler came to power. It ultimately failed because it gave rise shit like the Holocaust.

Also here, have this comic.

>>11257839
Artificial selection is a process that works faster and more effectively than natural selection. Look what dog breeding has done in the short time we have been doing it.

But yeah, why strive to turn mankind into a species of gods when we can ignore science for some ancient principal that fat retards breeding more fat retards is cute...

Except the idea is inherently racist. Also, who decides who's fit, and what makes you think you'd be chosen among the "elite" to be "allowed" to have children?

No.
Thanks to war we made shittons of discoveries on all major fields.

>>11257852
Slippery slope fallacy in the text, ad hominem in the comic. Congrats on supporting your point with well established logical fallacies bro!

>>11257874
Dog breeding has created animals that can't survive in the wild, animals with fucked up joints and backs and all other kinds of shit.

A mutt is healthier than a purebred. A wolf is more fit than some fluffy lapdog.

You want to breed people like animals, but you're the animal.

>>11257815
how could "stop keeping alive the unfit" not end in another holocaust? i mean not that it would bother me at all but your statement dont make any sense

>>11257893
>inherently racist
Utter bullshit propaganda, there is nothing preventing people of all races from breeding. There are incredibly intelligent people of every race, if you don't accept this fact then you are the racist one, not eugenics.

>what makes you think you'd be chosen among the "elite" to be "allowed" to have children?
When did I ever say I would? I'm not some elitist faggot, I would happily accept a vasectomy for the good of mankind in order to have the next generation be full of people who are smarter and more genetically fit than myself. Anyone who wouldn't is a selfish prick who doesn't give a shit about humanity.

Stalin is pretty evil. Just look at his Marx.

Killing all those Ukrainians in a span of a year. Imagine if it were as long as the holocaust. There would be no Slavcranians.

HItler wasn't evil, he was just a colossal faggot for losing the war (even if it was probably doomed from the beginning). Now, the world has become exactly as he described in Mein Kampf and no more chance for an Aryan paradise without Turd Worlders.

>>11257934
Because being alive inherently leads to procreation? HERP DERP

>Because in the early 1900s the world was on track to create a great future for mankind, and Hitler fucked it all up.

This is true, but I very much doubt it was for the reasons you quoted.

Idealism died after WWII. We don't think of mankind as perfectible anymore and that's why nobody's trying.

We're more interested in individual freedoms now.

>>11257874
Animal breeding sure has fucked up a lot of kinds of animals. You think we've done anything good to any domesticated animal?

>>11257968
Look at the reasons posted in this thread. No one is talking about individual freedoms, the arguments against it are "HOLOCAUST" and "RACIST!".

These are a result of associated eugenics with what Hitler did, and not the idealism from the early 1900's. If anything, we should be talking now about the possibilities of re-igniting the eugenics movement without even needing sterilization or selective breeding, but instead through genetic engineering, then not even individual freedoms would be an issue. Sadly, even this gets associated with Hitler.

>>11257940
>>11257815

Now HERE is a respectable and worthy human being. It's nice to see some other people aren't total vermin on this board. Too bad so few agree with these sorts of ideas. We could easily turn this world from the cesspool it is to a great place.

>>11257984
ape butler are pretty cool if you ask me

eugenics is evil even if you take Hitler out of the picture all together. Who decides what constitutes a 'desireable' characteristic are for humanity? You?

>>11258013
We pick objectively desirable traits, but I think you know this.

Cirno was here.

OP is a faggot.

ALERT

No one in this thread understands genetics or evolution, they just think they do.

ALERT

Here's something; Hitler probably wouldn't have come into power as he did if that asshole didn't assassinate the archduke ferdinand.

Blame Hitler all you want but that guy (Yes, I am ashamed that I can't remember his name and am too lazy to google it) is responsible for the chain of events that allowed hitler to come into power.

>>11258023

who the fuck is we? we have elections?

>>11258040
Way to back up your statement!!! I'm sure to believe you over anyone else in this thread!!

>>11257996
They are working on genetic engineering, but only for congenital diseases. The second you start allowing parents to even pick the gender of their child that is a valid slippery slope.

>>11258023
lol what does an objectively desirable trait look like? Will we consult God?

>>11258023

Combined with that and genetic engineering we can make people choose their own traits as well. It doesn't even need to be enforced in an authoritarian manner. One day it may be possible to make "perfect" babies from selecting various genes. Or even being able to change your own body by using technology or genetic manipulation techniques.

>>11258043

Dude..

The war was already going to happen. That was just the specific event that set it off at the time. It was inevitable regardless..

>>11258043
Obviously you didn't pay much attention in highschool history.

>>11258051

Okay then bro, what's your level of knowledge? You know, besides reading The God Delusion and Nietzsche.

>>11258043


WWI happened because Germany was building a railway line to baghdad, to secure oil commotities, not because someone was assasinated. but we learn the opposite because it makes for a 'just' war, and we won, so we write the history.

Since OP quoted Tesla:

Tesla was without a doubt one of the smartest men who ever lived. No one in their right mind would dispute this.

He never had kids. Meanwhile, your local trailer trash felon has had 20.

Is this good for mankind? I think we can all agree, no it is not.

But is the answer to not let the trailer trash breed? I wouldn't be against it, but a lot of others people are, so what's the alternate solution?

Next time a guy like Tesla shows up, force that fucker to fuck every woman in the goddamn world! "Sorry Tesla, bro, I know you're celibate, but we need your genes to carry on, so get to humpin, fucker!"

Suddenly, the next generation is a fuckton smarter, an nothing of value was lost! Huzzah!

>>11257815

Idiocacy was not a prophetic dream of what the future will or may become. It was a satirical mirror of what society has already become.

There are plenty of smart, genetically fit individuals who do nothing but fuck everything up. Why? Greed.

That's why eugenics is dumb.

Lots of smart parents give birth to dumb as shit kids, and the opposite occurs all the time as well.

Eugenics would probably end up resulting in the elite breeding a servile underclass of slaves fit for nothing but labor and warfare.

>>11257852
>Someone makes a point
>Other person claims it's wrong and then insults the sexual prowess of the person they're arguing with.

Wow. It's just like every argument on the Internet.

>>11258087

smart people have dumb babies and dumb people have smart babies as well you know.
its as much, if not more, and environmental things than purely genetic.

>>11258087
>implying there isn't a strong correlation between people being geniuses who accomplish great things and people not having many or any children

>>11258087

You wouldn't even have to fuck these days. You can now simply take sperm and genetic samples form him and insert them into willing donors. Sex is entirely obsolete. It's time we got rid of it entirely, but it's not totally feasible as of right now. So, sex should be something you do only for reproduction. There are better pleasures out there, mental connections, etc. Sex really has lost most of its use.

>>11258143

that is an awful thing to say anon. shame on you.

>>11258143
Oh it's you again.

People aren't going to stop having sex even if it becomes medically preferably to artificially conceive.

>>11258143
I think someone is bitter about not getting any.

>>11258132
Holy shit he just disproved centuries of selective dog breeding! Border Collies aren't REALLY smarter than the other breeds, they are just made that way by their ENVIRONMENT! Genetics is a lie gusy! Down with science!

>>11258120

And that's why you slowly but surely eradicate the stupid children and genetic flaws. We'll never be 100% perfect, but we can continue to get closer and closer to that goal. If dumb people have smart kids then you use them and breed them. If smart people have a dumb kid then you get rid of it. Over time you are getting rid of the genetic mishaps and keeping the useful genetics around.

>>11258180
ehm while we are on it can we please erase the "small boobs gene" also?

>>11258207
No, and you can fuck off.

>>11258167

Which is why you MAKE them stop. With the way technology is going it shouldn't be hard to ensure that these kinds of things stop happening. Maybe one day when people can handle sex as a complement to life and not as their whole life they can be allowed to do it. However, as of now too many people focus solely on it and that trait needs to be eliminated so we can focus on advancing humanity and not sitting here fucking like animals. People aren't sufficiently civilized enough to be able to control their primitive instincts yet, so we need to make sure they are kept under control.

At some point in your life, you will utter to yourself, "Hitler was right."

I find it humorous you guys think intelligence is actually a trait to be desired.

If anything, all it leads to is depressive realism.

Smart people are just as willing to fuck each other over and destroy society as dumb people. They're just more efficient at it.

>>11258226
what? you are the one who wanted to get rid of genetic flaws.

>>11258180

"Useful" is subjective. I think people with blond hair are more useful for fucking so let's eradicate all the dark haired genes, btw.

>>11258207

Boob size has nothing to do with the advancement of civilization. Small, large, medium it's all the same shit. As long as it serves the function it was meant to serve then there's no problem. Also, we won't be building perfect humans and mates any time soon, so don't get your hopes up of being able simply be able to 'make" a living make that fits up to your expectations.

>>11258236
At least there wouldn't be any more dumb people believing their propaganda and fighting their wars.

>>11258207
FUCK YOU I FUCKING LOVE SMALL TITTES

Big ones look great when held up by some miracle bra meant to show maximum cleavage, but everyone knows naked titties are superior to clothed titties, and when it comes to naked titties the small ones are superior. They are perky and don't sag, and they are more likely to have nice small nipples.

If anything, I would eliminate giant tits from the gene pool, and outlaw breast implants

>>11258229
Did you ever read 1984?

>>11258279
This! Big boobs rarely look good naked.

ITT: That Hideous Strength

>>11258238

That wasn't me. Also, small boobs aren't a genetic flaw. They're irrelevant as far as I see. If you just want them because they would be nice to look at and fuck, then you're a prole and you would be exterminated anyway.

>>11258241

Fucking is obsolete for the most part. Blondes as well as darker hair colored people can be intelligent, be fit, be productive members of society, etc. If you base your ideas on "fuckability" then you're a genetically inferior human. You have the old genetic desire to fuck and haven't learned to control it.

It would be way easier to just throw a couple emp nukes into orbit and throw the world into chaos to let natural selection take over for a little while. Meanwhile the elite have established safe areas where they will preserve the way of life we have now. Then over the next 25-50 years they wait for half the world population to die off from.

>>11258132
>its as much, if not more, and environmental things than purely genetic.

It's the opposite, actually. It's mostly genetic (for intelligence), but for someone like Tesla to be that smart it's an anomaly. I wonder if there is a chance anomalies are be passed down?

But just on the off chance we, as part of the human race, should of begged him to have children. To have Tesla's genetic link to the world cut off is a tragedy.

>>11258282
he dont really need to. just let us wat another 10 years and were are right in it.

Then how do stupid people come from smart people?

>>11258282

Yes, I read 1984 and Brave New World. They were great ideologies. A combination of them would be a great world, if ruled correctly. You can easily take the same underlying philosophy in both of those and form them into a great place.

The real question is:

When will genetic engineering reach a point where we can engineer children to have Stephen Hawking's brain, Lance Armstrong's endurance, and Shaq's stature (and of course get rid of that whole Lou Gehrig's, thing)

>>11258362
Huxley was right, we all ready live in a Brave New World minus the soma.

>>11257815

You have the idea that we must follow our past. That we must abide by the laws of natural selection. This is similar to people arguing that polygamy is better than monogamy, because it is more "natural."

However, you have a big flaw. There is nothing that says that we, as humans, must follow our past. There is nothing that says we can not change our way of life. On this planet, humans have only one thing, intelligence. With this, we have been able to far exceed anything that have been conceived as "natural" for species. We can fly faster than the fastest animal. We can move on the ground faster than any animal. All this is possible with technology.

So why must we be bound to our past in this idea of "natural selection." Why not, instead of extinguishing the ignorant, we extinguish ignorance? We should not allow ourselves to bind our intelligence to preconceived notations. We are unique, and we must preserve this.

>>11258362
sulks lairts

>>11258371

We have the bad aspects of it. Right now humanity cannot handle those pleasures responsibly and moderate themselves. That sort of thing needs to wait until humans have been civilized enough to not go overboard and jump right back into acting like primitive apes.

>>11258362
Not sure if serious

I mean sure, 1984 is a shitty dystopia, but after reading through Brave New World a time or 3 I can't help but think that I would fucking LOVE to live in that world!

Lots of sex without commitments?
Yes please!

Programmed from childhood to be convinced I was in the best class and the people in the other classes got screwed?
Yes please!

Government provided to keep me happy all the time?
Yes please!

Orgy Porgy?
Yes please!

>>11258369
I'm just wondering what's to gain with a race of super-scientist basketball players.

Are we trying to impress God or what?

Transhumanist here, get the fuck out OP. He permanently discredited all the idiots who thought a certain race or skin color were desirable traits. It'll take a while, but thanks to that, we'll eventually turn ourselves into supermen.

Not trolling, in the least here. 100% serious.

>>11258362
>1984
>Brave New World
>great world

>>11258411
We will use our super scientist brains to expand our civilization far beyond our planet.

We will use our super stature to wtfpwn all other civilizations we come across in the galaxy, laughing at their inferiority as we crush them...starting with those blue hippy fuckers from Avatar...

>>11258415

I said that using the same underlying structures within those societies and mixing them up could create a great world.
>>11258404

And this is an example of why humans as of right now should not be allowed this much pleasure. You take it too far and do not take things in moderation. Humanity needs to be ruthlessly forced to become civilized for a long time and after a few generations of eugenics and genetic modifications we can try that. Right now, as you can see, it just leads to disaster and endless ignorance.

>>11258175


dude, there is a world of difference between the intelligence of dogs and the intelligence of humans, you mincing, hyperbolic, sarcastic cocksucker.

>>11258442
>We will use our super scientist brains to expand our civilization far beyond our planet.

So we can get what? Are you imagining a Star Fleet type situation here?

>We will use our super stature to wtfpwn all other civilizations we come across in the galaxy, laughing at their inferiority as we crush them...starting with those blue hippy fuckers from Avatar...

I see.

>>11258454
you like the movie "Equilibrium" right?

"honey have you taken your "i do whatever they say" pill yet?"
"oh no thanks for reminding me"

>>11258454
Learning discipline and to enjoy pleasure in moderation is the virtue, not the moderation itself.

Nothing good comes from forced perfecting regiments, because a society of prisoners wouldn't reap any of the benefits you see to think would come from it.

>>11258468
> there is a world of difference between the intelligence of dogs and the intelligence of humans
Umm no shit, the example was just proof that intelligence is genetic and can easily be changed (improved) within a species in a short period through artificial selection

>you mincing, hyperbolic, sarcastic cocksucker
Sure is ad hominem in here

None of you can even do calculus. You would all be grouped in with the undesirables and forcibly vasectomized.

>>11258506

Then you get rid of the people who refuse to see how moderation of things is better than excessively partaking in them and keep the rest. Then you have a society full of people who know the virtue of it. Even so, being forced to do this would actually be a positive thing. Sure, the initial group of people forced into it may disapprove, but their children and the next few generations will find it normal. You need to think long term and for the greater good rather than what a few uppity peasants will think.

>>11258546
Again, forcing people to be moderate by threat of extermination isn't the virtue.

You either let the virtue, which is contrasted with temptation and gluttony, build naturally or you don't have the virtue. There is absolutely no other way to create the thing you want in people than the way it's already done and has always been done.

Any other way is artificial (obviously) and irrelevant.

>>11258514


i wasn't trying to discredit your argument. i was just calling you a cunt.
dogs are much less intelligent that us. using the way their brains have been changed over the centuries as an example of how a much more complex animal could simmilarly be changed is a flawed argument. dogs don't make music or art or do science.
you can have personal liberty or eugenics. im all about liberty, im unsettled by this peverse need for human perfection and fantasising about god like supermen. who the fuck decides all this when weve fucked up so many much less significant things? i like this place, fucked up as it is.
u hubristic?

the solution is dna trading/ designer children/ free market eugenics type deal.

watch this: "celebrity look alikes"
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8876480&tab=9482931&section=4765066&playlist=
&page=1

>>11258606

I don't care about "virtue". Whether the people do it of their own will or are forced to do it makes no difference. The actions are still working as if they were doing it of their own will. Over time people will find it good and newer generations will pass this on to their children and so on.

>>11258706
You sound like an edgy 16-year-old. The ironic thing is you would actively resist being herded to some government testes-twisting factory to be sterilized yourself.

(And trust me, you would be).

>>11258756

Oh, so rather than focus on the argument you focus on something else entirely and throw an ad hominem in for good measure? I think it's clear who the untermesnch is here. I would not care about being sterilized or even have a need. I don't intend on passing my genes or ever having sex. So, whether they give me a vasectomy or not doesn't change a damned thing. Even if I did want kids one day, if it was for the greater good that I didn't do so then I would gladly refrain from that. Take your childish antics out of here, sir.

I agree with OP's idea.

This would be a win/win situation for the morons like myself and for everyone else!

>>11258231

I would not dishonor the memory of the brave soldiers who fought that war, so many of whom made the ultimate sacrifice, by saying such a thing.

>>11258794
>I would not care about being sterilized or even have a need.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vasectomy+pictures

>I don't intend on passing my genes or ever having sex.
Ha. Okay man.

>Even if I did want kids one day, if it was for the greater good that I didn't do so then I would gladly refrain from that.
So, you're like... the ultimate Good Samaritan who somehow knows how he's going to feel for the rest of his life? Cool story brah. How much community service do you do out of sheer good will?

>Take your childish antics out of here, sir.
Oh god, the irony.

>>11258864

>So, you're like... the ultimate Good Samaritan

Indeed. I'm a beacon of righteousness and hope in a world of darkness and sorrow.

>>11258794
>>11258794
sure is devils advocate in here.
also, shitty OC yeah

>>11258925
Yeah, so am I. I spend my days cleaning up the seven thousand miles interstate roadwork I'm responsible for, through the Adopt-A-Highway program. I can't wait for my vasectomy either. Society needs it, man.

>>11258794


ITT: uppity logic 101 student.

>>11258857
>Implying there weren't brave and honorable soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice in the German army

VERY relevant to OP's arguments:

What Tesla is saying is basically what traditional Indian Brahmanas did for a thousand years until modern thinking messed it up in the last say 60 years. I mean the prople on the top rung of the indian caste system.

By now most of you have not seen a real purebred north indian brahmana. They're something special. Especially WRT to philosophy.

>>11259048


hahahahaha india as a fucken beacon of hope. they cant even put a commonwealth games on without fucking it up royally.

>>11257815
Tesla was simply expressing what was considered the norm at the time. He himself remained celibate throughout his life, by his own definition, his character is that of an undesirable one because what he essentially performed was the act of self elimination.

The common misconception people have about genetics and eugenics in general is the definition of desirability. Natural selection does not tend towards a superior specimen, only one that is fit to survive in the current environment. While it can be said that this particular stage of the specimen is superior than all others, it should not be assumed because the environment is not static.

Had the environment undergo sudden or gradual change, then the superior specimen of this time will be forced to evolve or replaced entirely by an alien specimen more adapted to change and survive.

So therefore superiority in terms of natural selection is not any defined trait, but rather the ability of an organism to continuously mutate and select among its own population to better survive in the environment.

Since the environment is everchanging, there is no objective target for any organism to evolve towards.

tl;dr life is random, throw a scientist onto the African plains and he won't survive

>>11259090
>>11259048
India decided castes one day and then they were set forever based on family/descendants

A new system would obviously need to test each new generation for intelligence, etc. and base shit on that, completely ignoring what background they came from, looking only at their genetic traits. If a "lower class" system happened to produce a supergenius kid, great! Move him on up! "Upper class" produces a retard? Sorry brah, down you go!

>>11259124
>Implying eugenics has anything to do with natural selection

I'm really sick of people tossing around natural selection in this thread like it is a synonym of evolution. Natural selection is the MECHANISM by which evolution naturally occurs in nature. Eugenics uses a completely different mechanism, ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, to pick out the traits that are deemed desirable to be carried forward for the future evolution of mankind.

Not trying to pick a side in the debate here, just trying to clear up this misconception, as I've raged a bit every time someone related eugenics to natural selection.

>>11257815

Thank you Hitler, I thought I would never say that. The beauty of nature and how we got here is that it was random. Einstein's parents weren't major science figures they were relative nobodies. Get out of here OP.

>>I mean the prople on the top rung of the indian caste system.

lolwut is a prople? Is that like an inbred goon who had to have everything handed to them?

In all honesty, if you look at it with a conservative eye, the ensuing war was far more beneficial. You see, it crippled the economies of America's top competitors, allowing us to dominate the auto industry, with our crappy cars. You see, imperialism, is the american way.

Nature is more complex then man. Eugenics is man made with no true understanding of what will evolve man into a superior being.

Therefor nature wins, you can rationalize eugenics all day, but in the end, nature will have a better path as it has no subjective understanding of what's desirable.

/thread

ITT: /r9k/ can't differentiate between positive and negative eugenics

/r9k/, I am disappoint.

That being said, genetic diversity is generally a good thing in nature, so eugenics based on ethnicity is dangerous due to genetic disease susceptibility within certain ethnic groups. As for some of you, who suggest a eugenic program based on "breeding the intelligent", the genetic factor on intelligence is debatable at best.

Forget funding eugenics programs, lets just sink our money into genetically engineered retroviruses that can be used for gene therapy (to make everyone healthier), and improve the population through mass vaccination.
Might take a lot longer, but its more ethically sound (in this poster's opinion).

Derp.

Here's one thing you don't get OP, stupidity of the masses is better for the ruling class. It allows the leaders to manipulate the masses into a patriotic frenzy and do things that would be considered by any man unethical. If your theory was to come into reality, the people would realise their was no need for those at the top. So the system will crumble down from the bottom up.

And at what point do you separate intelligence and ideals? You will have people at the top making out that you cannot be intelligent without being an ignorant fanatic (see 1984). That the ultimate goal of this will not be producing superior offspring, but offspring who's parents follow the will of the state.

>>11259173
>The current system works, so why try to improve it?

Ahh, then mentality that would have kept us living in caves. Luckily, many people in history have worked toward improving the world! While I don't expect everyone to make great contributions to humanity, it is sad to see people like you who actively want to hold us back.

proper eugenics argues in favor of a meritocracy that allows for enough personal freedom to prove one's worth through deeds.
limiting people to what they're born into only made sense in more primitive times because of the limited technology and understanding of the highly unpredictable nature of genetic inheritance.
It's like rolling the dice, maybe your kid will have blue eyes, but maybe they won't.

>genetic factor on intelligence is debatable at best

Debatable at best? There is NO debate on this in the scientific community whatsoever. Intelligence is genetic.

What do you think the difference is between a human brain and a mouse brain is? Fuckin magic? If we raise a mouse as a human it will be as smart as one? No, humans have brains that are genetically superior to mice. And some humans have brains that are genetically more powerful than other humans. There is no question of this, no debate, it is scientific fact.

mounting biological evidence is revealing that intelligence is largely a matter of upbringing and environment, not inheritance.

epigenetic changes during natal and early childhood development are the mechanism. epigenetic marks, while somewhat conserved between generations, are nowhere near as permanent as genetic sequences and thus the whole idea of eugenics is pretty flawed.

Fucking shit.
I'd be even happy if the governments actually really supports suicide assistant! Not only for old on the death bed, but for every willing one.

>>11259286

genetic differences bewteen species, even humans and things like nematodes, are incredibly small, and almost fall away entirely when you get into mammals.

every human is estimated to be greater than 99.9% equivalent, in DNA sequence, to others.

the largest determining factor between species, between cell types, and between individuals is not the genes themselves but how they are expressed (eg epigenetics)

take a class that covers genetics further than the 1950s and you'll learn.

>>11259286

Yeah, I find eugenics wrong but to be honest I wouldn't mind enforcing eugenics on freshman kids who think they are gifts to the world cause they picked up nihilism, eugenics etc and think they got it all figured out.

Okey, back to the post I was quoting. Let there be no doubt about this, intelligence is genetic and it will always be. You can't learn intelligence. You can learn knowledge, wisdom and experience. But you can never learn intelligence. That my friends, is set in stone trough your genetic code.

interesting captcha : cultural ploping

>>11259348
>>11259303

Show me one medical journal, or any kind of scientific research that dares to say intelligence is not genetically determined. Doesn't exist.

You kids really need to stop listening to what "social science" professors tells you.

>>11259378

you're wrong.

while there is a genetic component to intelligence, the extent of its contribution is unknown. recent/current research has shown that the environment in which the person is brought up in, in the womb and in the few years in which the brain is rapidly developing, are more of a factor than genetics, however.

the most plausible mechanism for this is through epigenetics, which refers to changes in expression of genes without change in the actual genetic code. epigenetic markers are much less heritable and much more malleable over a lifetime than a person's genetic code.

>>11259378
see:
>>11259348

To further support that since you seem to have no grasp, the studies cited in
>>11259303
is in regards to studies on school performance, where they are comparing a bunch of kids in the middle of the bell curve on their school results. They were finding that the differences between the kids in the comfy suburban areas and the ones in the shitty urban ones had major differences because of upbrining and not genetics. NO FUCKING SHIT! For one thing, these are large samples, the majority of them are going to fall into a single standard deviation of the average IQ! What OP is talking about is taking the UPPER OUTLIERS, the most genetically intelligent, and passing on their genes.

It's like this. Most people today have had a BETTER education growing up than Einstein or Tesla had. Yet despite superior education, a better upbrining, they can't even wrap their heads around the shit that Tesla and Einstein did, let alone emulate it! That's because Einstein and Tesla were genetic outliers, their brains were ridiculously more powerful than the average human brain as a result of a genetic anomaly, not some super fancy megalearner upbringing.

I think you guys are forgetting that the potential for everything about us is genetically based. What actualizes some genetic potentialities and not others rely on other factors, however.

You know, during the regime of Nazi's, experiments were conducted on the jews/unworthy. These experiments helped further develop our understanding of the human body etc.

>>11259463

I don't need to read what you write, I ask you to show me a medical journal or any kind of scientific research that supports your claims. So far you have only said "research shows" without any kind of source, as often happens when people try to deny that intelligence is determined by our genetics.

http://genetica.ufcspa.edu.br/artigos/artigos%20recentes/Genetics%20of%20intelligence.pdf

read this and don't utter a word about genetics not being the determining factor in a person intelligence before you provide a scientific research which supports your crazy beliefs. But you won't find it, cause such does not exist, except by social science lectures and professors who clearly do not have a scientific background in genetics or any kind of human biological science.

>>11259348

You didn't actually read the post before you replied, did you?
Way to prove your literacy skills, primate. Don't breed.

And go ahead, live in the 20th century. Or a cave for that matter. Natural selection favors the smart and the strong, not petulant trolls.

>>11259133

Exactly. Genetic inheritance can be unpredictable. Only an idiot with limited understanding of the subject would adhere to a rigid and maladaptive approach.

>>11259637
>I USE BIG WORDS THAT MEANS I'M SMARTER THAN THEM RIGHT MOMMY? :(

>>11259777
Which large words would those be, anon? :3

Go live in Rapture, OP, you deluded fuckwit.

>>11259846
Compelling argument bro. You have swayed my opinion with your superior logics.

>>11259905
>mankind
>great future

You can only choose one there, star.

>>11259777

I see somebody is butthurt. Awesome.
Keep dancing cave-fag, I could use the entertainment.

>>11259926

James J. Lee is that you? Is some anti-humanity nature nut trying to call someone else a deluded fuckwit? Well this just became adorable! :3

>>11259975
How would eugenics eliminate man's need to dominate whatever is below him? Would eugenics eliminate man's desire to conquer and kill?

Highly unlikely. I'm not anti-humanist, that's cute. The problems within our global society are much larger than who gets to breed and qualities thereof. You might wanna start somewhere else rather than worrying if someone who isn't as genetically acceptable is having children or not.

Here's a hint: you're only around because of people who are vastly inferior to yourself.

oh cool, I didn't realize that you had

a) determined an accurate measure of intelligence
b) determined that intelligence is a strongly heritable trait
c) pinpointed the genes that make you more intelligent
d) found out all the epistatic activities that those genes have on other genes or vice versa
e) a cut-off point so that we can let all the people above that point breed and the rest be involuntarily sterilized
f) a reason to think that bottle-necking a population is a good idea. it's not like we'd end up with a smaller group of alleles to choose from, which would lead to a higher incidence of recessive mutations becoming significantly more common, or anything.

cool idea, man!!

>>11260009
You also apparently didn't realize that people have been selectively breeding desirable traits in plants and animals for centuries and we have been able to achieve amazing improvements in those desired traits of those species in that time without encountering any of the issues you listed.

Cute thoughts though

>>11260042
>aminals and plants are bred becuz they get better over time
>of coarse this directly applies to ppl

>>11260065
Umm, it does you fucking dipshit. DNA is DNA. Humans are animals.

What exactly makes you think that taking the biggest, strongest man and breeding him with all the females isn't going to have the same effect on that population of people as taking the biggest, strongest dog and breeding him with all the females would have on that population of dogs?

Eugenics is fucking evil.

>>11260042

you're right, breeding plants totally has the exact same ramifications as breeding humans. and they're DEFINITELY just as complex as we are!! and they definitely have the same generation times, lifespan, development, reproductive style, and genomes as animals. and also, all natural/artificial selection and genetic drift has never ever negatively impacted a species. and we can also predict everything that will happen to them because there is no randomness in appearance of mutations and epistatic reactions or anything!

you have a really thorough understanding of genetic and evolutionary principles!

>>11260102
Oh really? So if we could genetically engineer babies to ensure that they wouldn't have any genetic disorders, so we could eliminate shit like sickle cell anemia and lou gehrig'g disease, that is fucking evil?

You are fucking evil for saying that, you insensitive anti-progress dick

>>11260134
>Why put up one straw man when we can put up 10?

>>11260156
>I have no argument and I must troll

>Implying Op would not be among the first wave of subhuman scum to be executed.

>>11260134
You seem to be confusing the process of simply carrying on the most desirable traits with having some specific plan/goal in mind.

That or you are a complete retard, it's hard to tell sometimes.

>>11260175
>Implying OP hasn't already repeatedly stated that he would happily accept sterilization if he was not deemed to be one of the best candidates for reproduction

>>11260138
Have you ever considered where all these perfect, immune to disease, and for all intents and purposes, immortal, human beings will live? Have you forgotten that almost a third of the world's population still lacks the basic necessities for life? And you want to decrease the death rate?

Cool plan, bro. We need to sort our shit out with the people that are already alive and suffering before we can think of bringing these new superhumans into existence.

>>11260134
Okay, you obviously just opened a wikipedia article and started pasting big words you saw that sounded relevant. Half of what you said has nothing to do with anything in this thread bud. I'm not on OP's side on this at all, but sadly as far as general knowledge of genetics comes OP seems to have a better grasp on it than you.

>>11260218
This post contained logic and raised reasonable questions. I applaud it, as it is the complete opposite of the original, "Eugenics is fucking evil" post that was being responded to.

>>11260218
Oh that's easy, just Nuke all of Africa, problems solved across the board.

>>11260259

I know you're joking/trolling but this brings me back to my original point. >>11260102

You know who 'created' the Hitler we all know right?

>>11260271
Because eugenics = genocide amirite?

Oh wait, no, that's bullshit. This brings me back to my original point.
>>11257815
>Hitler fucked it all up.

>>11260235
No, you're just a fucking moron.
I'm not sure where you guys are getting the idea that applying order on a chaotic system always makes it more orderly (or better, rather.)

He's fucking right. Eugenics, as the OP presents it, does not account or defend against mutations or gene expression.

>>11260235

or I study evolutionary biology. evolution is rarely predictable, you don't know what happens when you start messing around with genes. you can select for specific traits all you want, but you can't predict what other effects that will have on the population over time. if you continue reducing the number of breeding individuals, you're reducing the variety of genes you can pick from.

>>11260218
>>11260218
the starving people in the world are, in an evolutionary sense, not fit for survival. if they cant feed themselves, they would die. the point is to take the good and breed them so we have more good. the good are the aryans or the master race. so we need to breed more self-sufficent people so we wont have alot of unself-sufficient people

Purebred dogs have shitloads of health problems. This would apply to humans too in time if your plan did become reality. Plus a smaller gene pool would leave us in great danger to viruses.

>>11260338
shut the fuck up
no, that it.
just shut the fuck up.

>>11260342
Exactly. Case in point, the cheetah population is greatly reduced in genetic diversity and the species is expected to be extinct soon.

>>11257815

it's like you've got 1, and you're got another 1, and you've got a plus sign floating around there somewhere, you just have to put it all together and make 2.

you can do it!

>>11260300
Idiot, of course this is mutation, evolution is still fucking happening, this is simply adding a mechanism of selection, that is it. Read a fucking book.

>>11260317
Bullshit you study evolutionary biology. Evolution 101 is looking at the examples of what can happen when artificial selection pressures are introduced to an evolving population. The easiest example, as has been cited many times, is in dog breeding. Breeders select for the dogs with the best sense of smell, they get the bloodhound. They select for the smartest, they get the Border Collie. They select for the traits they want and they control the direction of the evolution. It has been seen, it has been used, it is effective.

Of course other shit happens that isn't planned for, no one has denied that the entire time. Evolution continues to happen, natural selection continues to happen, this is the same fucking process but just with the added mechanism of an artificial selection.

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

C'mon guys just a couple more posts! I've gotten almost every single one on this list crossed off!

>>11260420
No, you shut the fuck up.
What about agriculture that's getting fucked up the ass by viruses that have their way with a relatively genetically homogeneous group? In particular, bananas.

>>11260355
if they cant feed themselves
we HAVE to feed them
they become like our children
they become reliant on the self-sufficeint ones
its like we pity them

I'm surprised there aren't more pro eugenics people in here considering how many evolutionists are on 4chan

If you believe in evolution you might as well believe in eugenics, the shit goes hand in hand. Kill the undesirables gusy! Yeah! Evolution!

>>11260455
homogeneous group being the key word.

Say the top 10% most intelligent breed. That is 600 million different genetic codes passing on. Still larger than the entire human population for most of history. Plenty of diversity is there, dipshit.

>>11260259

They're already ruining themselves. I say just give the smart ones a chance to get the fuck out of there so the rest of us don't wind up too inbred.
Same thing for Mexico, China, and the American mid-west.

>>11260420

If the traits you're selecting for are strongly heritable, you can put tons of selection pressure on them, sure! You'll end up with a variation of expression of the trait amongst the population, and they'll all probably be sick due to generations of inbreeding. Just like pure-bred dogs. That's evolution 101, honey.

>>11260575
Damn all that inbreeding that occurs between the 600,000,000 people in the top 10%!

>>11260529

breeding 10% of the population for each generation will degrade the population very quickly. it's unlikely that just breeding the top 10% once and letting the next generation breed without any selection will have much of an effect.