Eugenics must be a cornerstone in the society of the future, the one that will set out to conquer the stars as is mankind's birthright. Right now, our gene pool is a cesspool.
Do you think it will work in the future, /pol/? How long will it take to purify mankind's legacy? Do you have any undesirable and potentially inheritable traits, or if you had any would you stick by Eugenics and not reproduce, theoretically assuming that your race is no longer under threat?
If you have your own must-haves for the perfect celestial conqueror society, post 'em.
Cocked it up.
The process of natural selection used to sort out the weak, disabled and diseased from the get-go, thus leaving only the most adaptable and tenacious of us to forge on.
Modern advances have enabled us to bypass this process and thus the gene pool was flooded with disability and disease that would not have made it in without the comfort and safety of the modern world.
Eugenics facilitates the process of natural selection artificially, thus bringing us back on the track towards permanent and stalwart genetic improvement as a species.
>The process of natural selection used to sort out the weak, disabled and diseased from the get-go, thus leaving only the most adaptable and tenacious of us to forge on.
Modern advances have enabled us to bypass this process
There lies your solution. Eugenics won't ever work. Humans cannot predict what diseases will arise because of mutation, which happens all the time. We've only ever been able to select for one trait at the disadvantage of another. Just take a look at dogs. The more pedigree they are, the more health problems they have. Not even natural selection can do that. Just look at humans: extraordinary long distance runner and throwers, yet some of the worst brawlers. A human would be hard-pressed to win without tools against most other mammals.
We aren't completely free from natural selection yet. We either push forward until we have gene therapy and altering to eliminate genetic disease, or we'll end up retarded enough to be pulled back into the grasp of natural selection which will put us on the right track again. Eugenics is too expensive anyway.
id gattaca the fuck out of the population
science can be used to make the species better and should be.
problems do arise though. like allowing government to dictate it. or the godfags constantly crying like little faggots.
Eugenics will never work in the same way gene therapy won't, that is, 100%. It's still a means to greatly purify the global pool.
It's also not that expensive if we're not sterilizing anyone. Assuming we've moved forward in the way we think and left feel-good for do-good, simply denying reproduction would work.
The future of eugenics is interesting, a bit scary.
With the swing towards far right and bioinformatics being researched I would estimate maybe 5 years until software that calculates optimal genes and thus optimal mating partner for intelligence, health, and so on.
One whiff of a good war and the liberals will vanish into thin air. Those who stick to their ideas will be resented by everyone else for caring about stupid shit and not doing any work.
When their nations mobilize, its true pillars - the hardworking right wing - will brutally beat leftist degeneracy out of the system.
Interesting to think that less than 100 years ago most scientists and politicians accepted eugenics as the way of the future.
Due to 1933-1945 unfortunately "Eugenics" is probably dead unless we use genetic engineering. That way everyone has the "right" to reproduce but the worst defects are corrected and not passed on.
It's literally natural selection without people having to die in horrid ways.
Those born with defects will have every opportunity to contribute to the future society and will be remembered like anyone else. Just one rule - no kids for you.
This is an idea that's always been in my mind. Reproduction is a responsability and not a right. Not only middle and upper middle class with good genetics should have more kids but people with hereditary issues should refrain to have kids of their own.
I myself have scoliosis and a couple more hereditary flaws and that's why I refuse to have kids of my own. Still, 8 years semi-profesional handball player and 6 years of kickboxing + hapkido. Now at my 30s I start feeling the weight of my genetics.
It's very selfish to have this hereditary problems and add the aggravated factor of a low income household and still think it's ok to bring one child or even more to this world knowing that not only they will probably struggle to eat and live on their own but they will never be actually healthy.
Now you can argue that the kid can be happy anyway with loving parents all you want and there might be cases. I've been, and am, somewhat happy even thought I was raised as an orphan but if you thinking it coldly, if a "soul" had the chance to chose, being unbiased by any short of love of a family he doesn't have yet, do you think they would choose a subpar specimen to be hosted on?
Times are changing. We grow disconnected from concepts that were used to mean a big deal like loyalty to your kind and such. We think we're the vanguard of freedom and rights but we overlook any obligation or responsability. We think that we lose our identity if we pledge our alliedgance to a race or culture.
Still, I hold no hope and we will probably end up destroying ourselves and we will start devolving to our extinction.
Nah, not unless we grit our teeth and go through it like we always have. I hate defeatist doom-calling.
Mankind is destined for greatness.
This. But less dystopian.
What I would like to see in the future; couples wanting to reproduce will fertilise a number of her eggs. These will develope into zygotes and their genome will be sequenced.
Unnatural selection will be applied at this stage. Fertilised eggs with genetic predisposition to various problems (cancers, growth defects, vision impairment, etc) will be terminated before ever developing into anything substantial.
By choosing the genetically healthiest zygotes and allowing only these to develope into people, humanity would be imposing a system of selection that is several orders of magnitude more efficient than any natural selection ever was.
You could effectively remove genetic disorders like sickle cell anaemia from the population within a couple generations.
Obviously this therapy will be optional and will be expensive. However if you are having kids and want the best for them, and can afford it, this would be exactly the kind of thing you'd do.
If you believe in eugenics, practice it yourself. Lead by example. Find a man who is better than you in every way, and use his sperm for procreation with your wife. It's that simple.
Humans will never escape our solar system. But if we get smarter, we will be able to design advanced machines with advanced AI that could pull it off one day.
I'm defeatist because from the people I know from work, personal activities and my friends circle not a single one thinks about these kinds of things. So I go to the internet, someone posts an interesting way of thinking, wether I agree or disagree, and if you raise that issue in a conversation with people irl they joke about it and laught it away.
Same happens when I see these people with their monologues in the youtube videos addressing problems but then you see nothing translated in the real world. The worst part is when they say "and I warned about this years ago" because you realize that's the pattern.
Most political parties with non-PC ideals remain irrelevant and all of them backpedal a lot in terms of immigration or change of morals and they try to focus on economics to at least get some representation in the parlament.
Don't want to be a party pooper but it's my impression of the state of affairs.
Baby steps. I'm thinking next 3-5 decades.
Also, imposing this kind of thing will imply some form of totalitarian governmental control of reproductive rights. This is incompatible (in my view) with a free, wealthy and highly educated society - as evidenced by global trends toward liberal democracy with increasing wealth and education.
The only way I see the procedure I propose taking off is people understanding that it represents the best thing they can do to give their kids a good shot at a healthy, happy life. When this happens it will inevitably get cheaper with improving technology and the economies of scale associated with global uptake.
We can make better people simply by applying the techniques leaned from animal husbandry. Animal husbandry has taught us that sperm is the best way to spread good genes. Only the best bulls breed.
Genius sperm banks should be set up all over the world for the public's use. The more intelligent people out there, the better.
>4chan is now doing state flags
Fucking why doesn't it work for me...............
It's a Russian movie based on a sci-fi novel by Strugatsky Brothers.
>Humans will never escape the solar system
>What is alcubierre drive
>What is ion drive
Shame we might not be around so I can shove our victory in your face.
Worry not, see >>59968336
100% agree we need smarter people, and this genius sperm bank business already happens, albeit to a small and insignificant degree on the scale of things.
The problem is it doesn't address the desire of people to procreate with their partner, and pass on their own genetics.
Again, you can't enforce genius insemination because this would require nasty totalitarianism that is largely incompatible with the kind of society we all want to live in.
>a fucking NIGGER talking shit about white americans
>Eugenics won't ever work. Humans cannot predict what diseases will arise because of mutation, which happens all the time. We've only ever been able to select for one trait at the disadvantage of another. Just take a look at dogs. The more pedigree they are, the more health problems they have. Not even natural selection can do that. Just look at humans: extraordinary long distance runner and throwers, yet some of the worst brawlers. A human would be hard-pressed to win without tools against most other mammals.
YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF EUGENICS
Eugenics is not a RPG game where being smart automatically makes you weak.
>yet some of the worst brawlers. A human would be hard-pressed to win without tools against most other mammals.
Eugenics if properly done, there is no reason why we can't create humans with 180+ IQ and enough muscular strength to fight 10 bears vs 1 superhuman with no weapons
There is no reason for not doing Eugenics other than LIBTARD FEELINGS
A recent Eugenics paper in fact showed that If we DID do Eugenics we could create humans that are around 5.5 standard deviations above in strength and intelligence. So yes 170 IQ dudes that are 8 foot tall and able to bench press cars without breaking a sweat
I've been making eugenics threads on here recently.. it's nice to see others get involved.
Eugenics is love. Eugenics is life.
Can't post links
But here are the "minimum" estimates of traits that could be improved just by having "perfect" genomes
>We all have varying amounts of “broken genes,” the genetic equivalent of spelling errors. Of those errors that have an effect, the vast majority are bad; as Mike pointed out, if you were to open up a computer program and edit code at random, you are far more likely to ruin or degrade the program than improve it. There are several different definitions and estimates of the numbers of these errors: 100 semi-unique Loss of Function mutations (MacArthur 2012), 1,000 minor IQ-decreasing variants (Hsu 2014), 300 health-decreasing mutations (Leroi 2005).
>Broken genes have a broadly linear additive effect on general fitness, which is well approximate by IQ. Stephen Hsu’s research indicates that people have an average of 1000 broken genes, with 30-40 mutations contributing to a stunning -1SD drop in intelligence. In essence, it’s not so much that there are genes for intelligence, as there are genes for stupidity. Fix all of them, and theoretically, you might get IQs never before observed on this planet. As Greg Cochran memorably put it:
I can understand improving humanity, but 170IQ mutants are never going to fit in. They won't even be able to communicate with regular people. Most likely, they'll end up going autismal case dweller at best, or Elliot Rogers at worst.
This is just "fixing broken genes"
I can't find the other paper, but the 5 standard deviations I am citing comes from another paper.
Where the author uses
wild chicken vs domesticated chicken egg laying capabilities to estimate the ceiling for eugenics.
As a reference point a wild chicken lays around 10 eggs a year
A domesticated chicken on the other hand lays around 200 eggs a year.
Now assuming the same process we can extend this to human IQ and human physical strength and get some crazy numbers like 200 average IQ and 1000 lb bench press with no training
>Most likely, they'll end up going autismal case dweller at best, or Elliot Rogers at worst.
Wrong, all the girls would want to fuck them due to genes having a very strong correlation with physical beauty.
They would not only be extremely attractive, extremely smart, extremely strong
keep in mind that they will have 5 SD's in all of the traits listed >>59975008
so they would probably be much more sociable
nope, eugenics is actually BAD for the white race as a whole.
we lost because we stopped having a tough, undeducated working serf class. The industrial revolution and especially mass education was the downfall of the west. We relied on machines and other races to do the work for us and became lazy and complacent.
Intellectual sedentary work, and high IQ was supposed to be for a small elite. Without a whole people with a range of intelligences you get what we have now..... a world of weak ass wordy liberals that basically act like jews. The more soft and ecuated and "elite" the lower the birth rate.
without stupid white people who breed more we end up with people from other races being imported, and/or a technocracy where a small number of people (who include a lot of Jews) control the masses.
Have you taken into account the far better conditions the domesticated chicken is living under when compared to the wild chicken? Abundance of food and water, control of disease etc.
Your comparison with IQ is overly simplistic I'm sorry to say.
Assuming we do attempt to fix these 'broken genes' via eugenics, how will it actually be done? Selective breeding alone? How does this square with the desire to reproduce in a free and fair society?
I'm interested know as I haven't read up on the subject.
Imagine trying to communicate with someone with 70IQ. That's what it would be like for someone with 170IQ to talk to an average person. Even if they were insanely above average in sociability, they'd realize how stupid the average person is.
Think about how much /pol/ hates black people. The average IQ difference between /pol/ and the typical black person is probably less than 30. Regular humans would be worse than niggers to supermutants.
>I can understand improving humanity, but 170IQ mutants are never going to fit in.
If they are many then they have their own group of people to hang with. Even people today with high IQ's feel like complete freaks when they are together with the normal folks and they feel incredibly relieved when they get to hang out with other high IQ folks.
>and 1000 lb bench press with no training
You clearly have no understanding of why Eugenics is necessary.
Any organism where males survive and reproduce with a 100% chance is doomed to extinction.
Theres a good reason why 100% of advanced organisms have males + females rather than Being asexual organisms.
And this is because of mutations, the mere act of creating a new child also creates mutations that make the child inferior in health, Intelligence etc... compared to the parents.
Thus a multicellular asexual organism would constantly produce inferior offspring until it went extinct.
However by doing sexual reproduction, suddenly the offsprings will fall on the bell curve!
Some of the offspring will actually end up with LESS mutations than the parents, Most of them will end up with the same amount or more than the parents.
Thus the only way to lower harmful mutations in the gene pool are to make a shiton of children. Take the handful of children with the least of the bad mutations and reproduce them and prevent the children with a lot of bad mutations from reproducing
Recipe for Waifu's
Doctor Easybakes Quick Waifu Recipe
Then we send kids here:
Doctor Easy Bakes Avatar robot workers
Avatar Bot! Good with pets! Cooking and shopping upgrade coming soon!
Need to be somewhere in a hurry? Roller bot!
Need to defend the home? Sentry bots got you covered!
Mow the lawn? Vaccuum!?
Have we got the bots for you!
Doctor Easybakes Augmented Human detatchables
A nice display? Gotcha-
Need help lifting that car? Supersuit
Need a light? Seriously...a fucking haduken!?!?
Wanna get somewhere fast but don't wanna walk?
Wanna power these gadgets for twice as long as currently possible or twice as strong for just as long as currently possible?
Lithium Germanium Batteries son.
>Have you taken into account the far better conditions the domesticated chicken is living under when compared to the wild chicken? Abundance of food and water, control of disease etc.
The study did take this into account, egg per chicken production records show that the average amount of eggs laid by chickens increased every year from the 1800's
The chickens in the 1800's only laid around 30 eggs per year. It took around 200 years of selective breeding to produce chickens that average 200 eggs per year.
>Assuming we do attempt to fix these 'broken genes' via eugenics, how will it actually be done? Selective breeding alone? How does this square with the desire to reproduce in a free and fair society?
A Gattaca approach, check the genome of every embryo. Kill the embryo's with a high number of identified genetic errors
I know people who can do the same, but lifting off the ground and pushing from your chest are completely different things. Can the human body even stand that much weight in that position anatomically? Probably not
In short terms
Asexual reproduction = No way to remove bad mutations
Sexual reproduction = Produces offspring with variable mutation counts, possible to remove negative mutations via only allowing the fittest to reproduce
Hence Some sort of eugenic factor is needed in order for ANY species to survive. In other words individuals with less mutations must procreate MORE than individuals with many mutations. Otherwise the "average" number of mutations in the gene pool continue to build up and every generation of babies is born sicker and dumber until the species goes extinct.
It will work out. The technology is already here we just need the data that correlates all the genes to traits. Once we have that missing piece it will be totally possible to do it through invitro. This is the only politically possible way to get eugenics started.
That wasn't the gattaca approach. The gattaca approach was they would use gene therapy to ensure your child received the best traits possible from the parents. It wasn't an "abort shit foetuses" approach, it was a "shit foetuses for shit people" approach.
The whole point was that a couple didn't get the gene therapy and produced a shitty son, which is obviously the start of the plot.
I actually really like Gattaca, no matter its flaws.
Here's the better chart that I was looking for,
There is no scientific reason why we can't do the same for average human intelligence + strength
You cant stop genetic fuck ups since the nature of sexual reproduction means the genes of your offspring will be more a mutant variant of your genes.
The only way to escape the cancer that is DNA is to somehow alter the properties of the molecule to produce no more mutations once we have created a theoreotical person genome with minor edits for various personalities, talents and appearances.
Of course we could avoid all this by ditching these meat suits in favor of biologically immortal robot bodies.
That's wrong though we have only made the huge changes In Dogs phenotype through inbreeding. It's not the same process. We aren't going from wolf to poodle, we are going from wolf to slightly better wolf.
By your logic every species that evolves from something else should have health problems.
>That wasn't the gattaca approach. The gattaca approach was they would use gene therapy to ensure your child received the best traits possible from the parents. It wasn't an "abort shit foetuses" approach, it was a "shit foetuses for shit people" approach.
Wrong Gattaca did not use gene therapy, they used genetic selection.
The parents created a shiton of embryo's that were scanned using a computer that could determine things such as height, IQ etc... and they chose to BEST embryo to implant.
I don't think that's what happened in the movie but that is the actual way that the genetic engineering will work in the real world. Every child is the best child out of 10. Even people with shit genes can make a decent child with 10 goes at it.
Agree with you on the Gattaca approach. Though this is how I imagine it'll happen >>59970826
There are still a few issues with the chicken comparisons though. At least for the one illustrated in the picture.
You can't directly compare the differences in egg productivity for chickens 100 years ago because there are too many variables affecting the comparison.
Better genetics is certainly one of them, but there have also been huge improvements in feed nutrition and disease control independent of this. To properly measure this you need to separate the influence of these variables.
Have you read up on the GM salmon recently FDA approved?
I live in a state with a large aquaculture industry and literally can't wait for this technology to rock up here. It'll improve the bottom line for the industry out of sight (assuming that they can actually sell the product to the Luddites in this country).