Eugenics

>>8036543
>we know how genetics work
no we don't.
Homogenizing the gene pool is the best way to end the human race.

>>8036543
Yes

But we don't have a sufficient understanding of genetics, it's easy to lose scientific basis for classification of desirable traits, artificial selection can lead to selecting for detrimental traits that may not show in one person but could be devastating down the line, we don't know how the environment may change, etc. Basically, we don't know enough.
I'm talking about soft eugenics btw, hard eugenics is for edgelords.
And, for the actual logistics, how to carry out soft eugenics is difficult

>>8036543
Most people think of forced-eugenics where populations determined to be suboptimal can be sterilized and the optimal breeders are treated like cattle and forced to fuck and be fuck for ideal parameters, pretty dystopian.

Then you have genetic engineering of embryos, which is fine, but you have a few outcomes here. Two of concern: you create subhumans for slavery, or you create an organism that surpasses humanity. The first one is more realistic, and more concerning to an extent. The second one is disturbing because you have a small group of people determining what traits have precedence for the picturesque concept of the next step in our evolution.

Finally you have voluntary eugenics where people actively try to optimize their offspring of their own will. This could be a good thing, you have more genetic diversity than the other two which helps our understanding of the human genome in general, enhances evolutionary potential, and is decentralized. And to some extent it's already in practice today, evolution has taught us well in selecting optimal phenotypes, we have to teach ourselves to find the optimal genotypes without sacrificing the decentralized monopoly on mating.

>>8036543
>could humans be selectively bred to create a better quality of human?
We are currently doing this. Within two generations, white genes will be bred out of existence.

>>8036543
>we know how genetics work
lolno

>>8037135

fertility rate of whites is still around 1.2
you need some math

1000 females having 1200 children means 600 new fem.
600 f. will have 720 kids = 360 f.
360 f. will have 432 kids = 216 f.

this 3 generations alone will take more than 80 years as per current age of women at first pregnancy and current gen already started

216 f. will have almost 260 kids = 130 f.
130 f. will have 156 kids = 78 f.
78 f. will have 94 kids = 47 f.

this will take another 90 years, so AD 2186
you do the rest

>inb4 some faggot strawmans and acts like eugenics is necessarily the murder of people someone doesn't like

>>8037191
White females do not breed with white males. White males are systematically being discriminated against and excluded from reproduction.

>>8037198
eugenics is the murder of people someone doesn't like

>>8037252

Yes, and being displaced from white countries increase the number of whites "isolated" in places with no mates available: think about Engrish teachers in Japanese small towns. As the world pop go up to 9 billions, whites will go down to 250M and the risk of isolation will increase: total fertility rate will go down progressively to 0.8 by 2100 considering girls marrying a white men and having all white grandparents.

>>8037252
White females, everywhere in the world, reproduce almost exclusively with white males

>>8037339
In less than 5 years there will be no such thing as "white countries" anymore. White people will be a minority in every country in the world. And this is great, insha'Allah.

>>8036547
plain and simply this
nobody in the academic world thinks these ideas are good, just internet cultured tools and nazi science fans

>>8037339
>>8037191

As white communities are shrinking and isolating, another problem will arise: inbreeding; so the Total Fertility Rate will continue to go down. I've done a better count with a spreadsheet, assuming that there are currently 400M white females that started breeding not so much ago or that will be capable of it in the next 32 years:

Year | TFR | White women

2016 | 1.20 | 400000000
2044 | 1.17 | 240000000
2076 | 1.14 | 140400000
2108 | 1.11 | 80028000
2140 | 1.08 | 44415540
2172 | 1.05 | 23984392
2204 | 1.02 | 12591806
2236 | 0.99 | 6421821
2268 | 0.96 | 3178801
2300 | 0.93 | 1525825
2332 | 0.90 | 709508
2364 | 0.87 | 319279
2396 | 0.84 | 138886
2428 | 0.81 | 58332
2460 | 0.78 | 23625
2492 | 0.75 | 9214
2524 | 0.72 | 3455
2556 | 0.69 | 1244
2588 | 0.66 | 429
2620 | 0.63 | 142
2652 | 0.60 | 45
2684 | 0.57 | 13
2716 | 0.54 | 4
2748 | 0.51 | 1
2780 | 0.48 | 0

so: under 1 million procreating white females in 3 centuries from now, and under 100K in 4 centuries.

1.) Because of self/group-serving ego biases and fallacies
2.) Because nature encourages diversity
3.) Because nature says freaks aren't always weak
4.) Because nature homogeneity is destructive
5.) Because logic dictates egotism and authoritarianism is flawed
6.) Only the weak fear diversity

>>8036543
Because of bumbling idiots who don't realize deleterious alleles make up diversity too. They cling onto the diversity buzzword since they've been spoonfed that propaganda their entire lives and unable to think outside that box. Yes some diversity is necessary for the species, namely diversity of functional immunological alleles. But we don't need a diversity of mental ability, we definitely want to select for the most capable.

There will never be a scenario where Huntington's disease or mental retardation is desirable.

>>8038505
False dilemma.
Most diversity is not disease related.
Closing breeding doors eventually leads to sterilization and lack of mutative progress.

Also, you're "weaknesses can never be cleverly used as strengths" is fallacious.
The argument from ignorance, personal incredulity, etc... are fallacies.

>>8038522
>False dilemma.
Hardly.

>Most diversity is not disease related.
Plenty is.

>Closing breeding doors eventually leads to sterilization and lack of mutative progress.
Slippery slope fallacy.

>Also, you're "weaknesses can never be cleverly used as strengths" is fallacious.
For all practical purposes it can't. Not to mention it's easier to use a strength as a strength.

> personal incredulity
Fuck off. Show me a scenario now where Huntington's is better than not having Huntington's.

>>8038522
>personal incredulity
Just on this note, that is what you assholes have been saying throughout this thread about how we don't and probably won't understand genetics well enough.

>>8038523
>Hardly
Not a counter argument

>Plenty
Not a counter argument

>Slippery slope fallacy
Determinism isn't a fallacy.
You're applying that wrong.
Scientific laws of genetic segregation are absolute.

>For all practical purposes it can't. Not to mention it's easier to use a strength as a strength.
Again, that's a fallacy.
See the "irreducible complexity" fallacy.
If you actually were into genetics, you would be aware of that fallacy.

>Fuck off. Show me a scenario now where Huntington's is better than not having Huntington's.
Do you even know what the "argument from ignorance is"?
Just because no one knows doesn't mean you can default to claiming knowledge due to lack of oppositional evidence to your statement.
>I've personally never seen x, and no has anyone I've met.
>Therefore x doesn't exist.
That's fallacious.

>Just on this note, that is what you assholes have been saying throughout this thread about how we don't and probably won't understand genetics well enough.
Because you don't.
Fallacies mixed are still fallacies.
Irreducible complexity fallacy
Personal incredulity
Argument from ignorance

Your thought process is automatically wrong.
You're not mature enough to understand how science works.
Presumptions are not science.

OP we do not know how genetics work.
Just because we have models doesn't mean we understand everything about them.

>>8036547
In diversity, strength.
Though having lots of sets of genes helps i.e. don't become an endangered species.

>>8038532
>Not a counter argument
You say this like you provided an argument in the first place. All you did was make a claim and so it was dismissed.

>Determinism isn't a fallacy.
Not a counter argument.

>irreducible complexity
Just pulling shit out of your ass now? Cool.

>"argument from ignorance is"?
Nice trap, first you fallacy drop "personal incredulity" as though you know what you're talking about. Then when I ask for proof of your credulity you throw this at me.

>You're not mature enough to understand how science works
LOL and you are? Hahahaha.

Presumptions are not science.
Like your presumption that "closing breeding doors eventually leads to sterilization and lack of mutative progress."

>>8037339
I think you'll find that the "Engrish teachers" do not stay in isolated Japanese towns until death. They leave, go home or to other countries, get a partner and have kids. Don't they?
Or - and here's a radical idea - go home on holiday, fall in love, bring new partner to Japan with them. You've seen that movie, right?

>>8037343
Mathematically impossible, unless we have a meteor strike, nuclear war or similar.

>>8038552
>Like your presumption that "closing breeding doors eventually leads to sterilization and lack of mutative progress."

That's not a presumption.
It's a law. It's called Interbreeding Depression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression

You're an F1 incestous idiot that uses fallacies and them multiples fallacies and uses the fallacy fallacy nonsense because you lack the intelligence to grasp the Socratic and Scientific Methods.

>>8038523
Oh, but it IS a false dilemma.
And how do you measure "most diversity" being disease related? This is clearly spurious.
If you want to muddy the waters, you must do better than this.

>>8036543
>breed a better quality of human

For what? What is your definition of "better"?

>>8036543
These threads are always trainwrecks of NEETs (most of these are also /pol/-tards) pretending they know anything.
I'll answer with a serious post to enlighten some of you faggots so you can hopefully stop regurgitating retarded shit you heard another retard say once.
Breeding is pretty inefficient. Keep in mind that genes are shuffled during meiosis.
There is not a 1:1 correlation between gene X and intelligence or what have you.
The brain is pretty complex and plastic, and we are no way near having mapped out everything.
All those "GUIZ WE FOUND GENES LINKED TO INTELLIGENCE" are shit studies with shit sample sizes and use stuff like IQ to quantify intelligence, but IQ isn't very accurate for quantifying intelligence in the first place, so take them with a big grain of salt.
Also, eugenics is pretty much 100% pseudoscience, but of course the wishful manchildren in here will never accept that because it conflicts with their ideology.

>>8038562
You do realize how small a population has to get for inbreeding depression right? We could eliminate everyone below an IQ of 115. That's about 84% of the population gone with a std dev of 10. We'd still have over a billion people left. At one pint it was estimated that our species population fell to 10,000-30,000 and we still made it. So clearly your slippery slope fallacy is nonsense.

>blah blah inbred
I'm not even going to bother.

>>8038566

Judging from OP's perfect understanding of "how genetics work" and deliberate "ignorance" on why eugenics is vilified, my best guess would be that his definition of "better" is synonymous to "white".

>>8038564
>Oh, but it IS a false dilemma.
Ok show where.

>And how do you measure "most diversity" being disease related?
I never said it was most. I said enough is.

>>8036543
Your leftism is showing.

>>8038572
>Thinking size has something to due with generational breeding
You're stupid.

>Oh, but it IS a false dilemma.
>Ok show where.
Anytime you say something along the lines of
>it has to be this because it can't be that
or
>it has to be this or this or it's nothing
or
>it has to be this or this
That's what a false dilemma is.
Because you're ignoring the possibility of other options outside of your personal or other's knowledge.

How do you not understand the outlines of fallacies?
If there is a presumption, and you're passing it off as a fact, you're being fallacious.

>>8038604
>Thinking size has something to due with generational breeding
You're stupid. There is an effect of population size on mate availability which matters for inbreeding depression. That's what your whole slippery slope spiel is based on restricting mate availability. Otherwise it has no leg to stand on.

>Anytime you say something along the lines of
Ok but show me where. I know what it is.

>Because you're ignoring the possibility of other options outside of your personal or other's knowledge.
Except I'm not. The point is we have to decide how to move forward and we only know so much. But it's adequate. We can safely assume Huntington's will never (99.9999999% of time) the be advantageous. So there's that one unlikely sceario where it's better, fuck that. Not worth the suffering it causes 99.99999% of the time.

>If there is a presumption, and you're passing it off as a fact, you're being fallacious.
You should learn from this, pot.

>>8036543
>Why is eugenics vilified

Let's do a find-and-replace to make this sentence closer to correct:

>Why is (Hurting people for the lulz with zero scientific backing) vilified?

Shit Anon I don't know.

Eugenics, however, is fucking applauded. If you get a baby w/ downs syndrome, abort that shit, ain't nobody but Tumblr gonna complain.

File: Galton.jpg (81KB, 400x543px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 400x543px

>>8036547
>>8037344
>>8038551


>Humans
Eugenics

>Animals
Selective breeding

Yes we do know how it works because we have practised it for centuries, even millennia with certain livestock. The milk cow is a human invention, genetically very far from the aurochs, its ancestor. That was man's doing: creating a cow that was expert at producing milk.

The same principle has been applied to all sorts of animals.
In the case of dog breeding this has led to significant health problems in many pure-bred dogs, but that is because they are being bred FOR FORM AND NOT FOR FUNCTION. We have for centuries successfully bred all kinds of dogs around the world that perform admirably at the tasks they are designed for.


All across the Western world in the 20th century we undertook various eugenics programs, but weak minded leftists and the aftermath of the Jewish holocaust turned us off from those experiments. Actually Hitler took inspiration for his eugenics programs from pioneering American ones.

Sterilising the retarded and the mentally ill, encouraging people with complementary traits to breed together, preventing inferior genetic stock from diluting superior stock, all of these are fine goals to aim for, and would undoubtedly have beneficial effects for the evolution of the human race in the long run.

>>8038668
The funny thing is Hitler went after the population with arguably the highest density of intellectuals. His program can't be termed eugenics in any meaningful way.

>>8038672
I know, encouraging the Jews to get their own country would have been better than killing them all.

>>8038672
>The funny thing is Hitler went after the population with arguably the highest density of intellectuals. His program can't be termed eugenics in any meaningful way.

He was a mad cunt. If you read his work, he wasn't even trying to breed a new, better "Aryan" human - he was trying to get Aryanism BACK into humans after it was lost, because that's how breeding works of course o_0

>>8038668
>All across the Western world in the 20th century we undertook various eugenics programs, but weak minded leftists and the aftermath of the Jewish holocaust turned us off from those experiments. Actually Hitler took inspiration for his eugenics programs from pioneering American ones.
>Sterilising the retarded and the mentally ill, encouraging people with complementary traits to breed together, preventing inferior genetic stock from diluting superior stock, all of these are fine goals to aim for, and would undoubtedly have beneficial effects for the evolution of the human race in the long run.

Lemme just...

>All across the Western world in the 20th century we (Hurt people for lulz with no scientific backing), but weak minded leftists and the aftermath of the Jewish holocaust turned us off from those experiments. Actually Hitler took inspiration for his (Hurt people for lulz with no scientific backing) programs from pioneering American ones.

>(Hurting people for lulz with no scientific backing) the retarded and the mentally ill, encouraging people with complementary traits to breed together, (hurting people for lulz with no scientific backing), all of these are fine goals to aim for, and would undoubtedly have beneficial effects for the evolution of the human race in the long run.

File: You've activated my trash card.jpg (30KB, 300x418px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 300x418px

>>8036543
>Why is eugenics vilified?
You know damn well why it's vilified.
>Why is seeking the optimal outcome bad?
Because every civilization that's tried led to ruin and abuse.
>All morals and ethics aside
I can tell you've thought about this a lot. A looot.
>could humans be selectively bred
Well yes, such is only natural.
>to create a better quality of human?
>better quality
Pic related.

>>8038724
Well memed, but wouldn't your talents be better suited for a board like >>>/b/ ?

File: 1457472717219.jpg (8KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x300px

>>8038668

>dog breeding

Try commercial bananas and merino sheep anon. Both were selectively bred FOR FUNCTION AND NOT FOR FORM and are now too genetically unfit to survive without human interference.

This is why eugenics is frowned upon by the western scientific community. Yeah the general public hates it because of muh nazis but those who study it oppose it because commercialization of a such methods can outright fuck over the organism.

There's a reason why shit like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault exist in the first place.

>>8036580

Your last statement is a good one, however it lies upon a foundation of assumption that I feel has n rational basis in human behavior.

It is casting the assumption that any rational human individual will look at themselves and accept that they are objectively and genetically inferior, and they should willfully remove themselves from the gene pool, whether it be in abstinence or suicide. We both know that is is not going to happen. It is instinct that we are attracted to specimens that will benefit the next generation, however because of the humans' ability to reason, even irrationally, will always produce some sort of counter-eugenicsesque movement, whether it be intentional or not.

tl;dr, some people are still gonna get it in whether they should or not.

>>8038774
>has n rational basis
Where n=0/1?

>>8038777

Once I read over this after it posted, I fucking knew someone was going to go there.

>>8038780
(-inf,3)

>>8038668
>Sterilising the retarded and the mentally ill

What about sterilizing the criminals?

>>8038762
Commercial interests push GMO crops on farmers; that has nothing to do with eugenics. The prime motive is money: farmers are forced to buy grains that can only yield once, therefore they have to return to the supplier to buy more grain the next year, as opposed to replanting the seed from the previous year (as farmers traditionally would).

I think you are missing the point regarding bananas and sheep however. Sure, they may have become dependent on humans for their survival (just like cows need to be milked twice a day or their udders will hurt and will eventually become ill), but this was deliberate. The only purpose these things serve is to feed us bananas and produce wool (and graze). As for the banana problem, we have other varieties of bananas still growing, especially in topical countries, but in any case I don't see how the banana problem -- little diversity increases vulnerability to disease -- is applicable to humans; after all, globalisation means that human diseases are more likely to spread around the world, yet while certain groups are more vulnerable to disease than others it remains to be seen whether less racial diversity would make any difference here in the case of a global pandemic (probably not).

>>8038811
Technically many criminals are mentally ill, and the average IQ of prison inmates is very low, with, I imagine, a large number of them qualifying for retard status.

Ideally, of course, serious crimes should be punished by death, and in such a way that the criminals do not weigh too heavily on the taxpayer/society (as they do in places like the US, staying on death row for a decade before execution).

>>8036543
We don't. We have cataloged every gene but haven't understood what a fraction of it does.
Certain heritable diseases are freely available in medical records and people who plan to have kids who might have a chance of inheriting said disease are usually informed.

>>8036543
>we know how genetics work
Nope.

It could potentially bring us to extinction in a catastrophic event.
There's a reason why whites are adapted to the cold, and blacks are adapted to the heat. Those are good things, that help ensure our species survival.

Also, we don't really know what genes are worthless, and as you probably already know, selecting people on phenotype really doesn't work, people with attractive phenotypes can still have shitty genes and vice versa. It's why Steve Ballmer isn't the most handsome man in the world, yet hardwired to crush competition.

>>8038731

What's the meme newfriend?

Every major eugenics program - EVERY major eugenics program - that was ever run on force turned out to be shockingly poorly managed.

The modern conception of just testing the fetus and then allowing the parents a choice is going well so far.

>>8038668
In science, if people stopped doing something they did in the past its because it was a stupid idea.

Dogs were bred for physical characteristics, which is theoretically possible for humans. You'd be infringing massively on the personal right to choose your mate so after several generations your great great grandchild might have a marginal increase in strength.

And what's going to happen it's the gene pool will become homogenised which is a very bad thing.

>>8038668
So, if humans should be breed for FUNCTIOn what is the FUNCTION of a human? Act for him, for the society, for the future, for what? How do you decide that? How can you say that your thought of ideal human is the better and not other?

File: 1392997408095.jpg (123KB, 529x640px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 529x640px

>>8038833
>homogenised

"they" are doing exactly that: the world will be populated by a single brown race incredibly homogenised

why don't you stop them while you still can?

>>8038846
>what is the function
Superior physical aesthetic & athleticism and intellectual ability/mental fortitude (low likelihood of developing mental disorders, etc).
The counter argument is probably one of two things:
a) robust health is more important than athleticism
b) you need some stupid people to do the menial and simple jobs in society for it to function properly.

The counter arguments to those two points are:
a) medical science can compensate where you don't have the genes to be a natural super-centenarian
b)robots are increasingly replacing humans for simple, labour intensive jobs. It is no longer clear that having a lower class of plebeians is beneficial to a harmonious society.

>>8038833
Are you aware that China has been doing this very thing with their athletes (certainly with basketball players) for some time now? This is how people like Yao Ming came to exist. I lived in a university campus in Shanghai for a year and witnessed it with mine own eyes: a dormitory full of giants and giantesses, all impossibly tall and strong.
By the way, I'm not advocating that we should strive to make all humans be 2 meters tall.


>>8038831
>poorly managed
Because it's difficult to make people do things against their will.

>>8036543
>Why is eugenics vilified?
>All morals and ethics aside
There's your problem.

>>8038849
>eye colour and skin colour is the most important type of diversity

>>8038654
>Tumblr gonna complain.
Considering how liberal they are they seem like the least likely ones to complain about abortion.

>>8038883
> i don't find it important so it shouldn't be important for anybody

>>8038892
>i find it important so most people should find it important and think that the world is deliberately being de-diversified by hidden forces.

>>8038883
>>8038892
>having enough diversity to care what other anons think
Time to get euthanizing.

Let me ask you why is this a need for you, I mean, plenty of people live whitout problems today, and humanity seems to be progressing without genetic manipulation. I could only agree with your brackets, but today we know, things are not so simple with gens

>>8038814

> Commercial interests push GMO crops on farmers; that has nothing to do with eugenics.

The hell it doesn't, commercial interests use eugenics to increase production of said crops and traits of animals to maximize profit.

> Sure, they may have become dependent on humans for their survival (just like cows need to be milked twice a day or their udders will hurt and will eventually become ill), but this was deliberate.
>this was deliberate

No one deliberately fucks over their cash crop or animal to the point of being so genetically unfit that they have to invest extra resources just to make sure it doesn't die out.

> but in any case I don't see how the banana problem -- little diversity increases vulnerability to disease -- is applicable to humans;

The banana problem arose because two particular traits, taste and lack of seeds were preferred over everything else.

A similar situation could occur through something like IQ. Where high IQ is preferred globally because of the homogenization of the world economy favoring fields related to technology.

The occurrence of conditions such as myopia and a high-IQ variant of schizophrenia (which does have less negative effects than the typical variant) both have studies that show correlations with high IQ. So the danger here isn't with crippling diseases but with passive conditions that can be address without necessarily fixing the issue (because it's cheaper to the average person) and can allow decrease fitness without being noticed immediately.

>>8039042
>maximize profit
So you think that will be an issue for humans? Eugenics will become a business?

>invest extra resources
The problems with bananas are contingent and I assume the industry focused on the current and previous type of banana because of higher yields and better consumer response.

>The banana problem arose because two particular traits
See, I think we are smarter than that when it comes to selective breeding of humans.

Already with race and show-jumping horses the science of selective breeding is quite advanced. Breeders keep track of known diseases and even whatever recessive genes the horse may be carrying so as to determine which female to inseminate, all while focusing on selecting a pair that will produce the most athletic and well behaved offspring. It's not such a complicated process that we will open the door to huge problems in the human population.

In any case, what I'm advocating is simply preventing lower IQ and crazy people form procreating.The worst possible outcome of such a policy is that it has no effect at all.

>>8037252
Yep, that's why you can't get laid, kek

>>8038908
>thinking
Euthanasia when

>>8038496
Nice sources and excessive extrapolation fag

>>8039210

if you can do a better job go ahead

>>8039307
You don't just go "source: my ass" and then pretend you need to get a reliable counter source to discredit your bullshit. Actually you can't discredit it because it has no credit at all.

>>8039343

sure bro, I can't wait to see your numbers tho

the whole point is that you need a 2.1 TFR for a developed country to maintain the population stable; do you think that white countries will manage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
(beware, stats are skewed by immigrants, gypsies, etc.)

>>8038849
No one was talking about da joos and I didn't say I supported them and you misunderstand.

Two reasons why open borders isn't bad for the human gene pool.

One, the purpose of a diverse gene pool is so humanity is more resilient to changes in the environment. When disaster happens some people will survive because of certain genes. Then the frequency of these genes in the population then increases because they survive, making humanity as a whole adapt to the disaster. Isolating local gene pools would increase diversity but it wouldn't allow the genes to spread to the rest of humanity.

Two, the world will not homogenise because of the base mutation rate. The mutation rate is in fact a lot higher in a larger population.

File: image.jpg (97KB, 645x380px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 645x380px

>>8036543
Eugenics has a bad reputation because of Nazi Germany and because of slave holders trying to breed stronger slaves

China actually has a massive and long running eugenics program in place with the goal of producing supercommandos
Their Olympic athletes are offshoots and experiments of the larger program

We, the United States, are watching it very closely and have successfully infiltrated it at its highest levels and are learning everything we can from it since eugenics is a big no-no in the Western world

Morals aside you can definitely breed more intelligent and more athletic humans, you can breed for more asinine traits like hair texture but you can also breed for important traits like sensory ability

>>8040231
>China is running an eugenics program
Bullshit
I have no idea why the west thinks this

>>8040241
Because it's true, Chang Li

Why is this thread going when it ended yesterday?
Is this a Williams' Dilemma?

>>8039522

Not that anon but European countries would have been in decent shape today if they didn't have two fucking world wars 25 years within each other.

They didn't even give themselves a god damn chance to replenish their numbers for a single generation before going at each other again.

If anyone thought losing well over 15 million Europeans within a half a century wouldn't have major ramifications on population numbers/ fertility rates they're crazy.

It isn't just the current economy or the immigration situation that's causing this to happen.

>>8040247
>Why is this thread going when it ended yesterday?

You mean like the constant Von Neumann circle jerk threads and the memeizuki threads?

Almost nothing new gets discussed here
I just stick around to call out the psychologyfags and economicsfags who isist that they're fields aren't the epitome of pseudoscience

>>8040248
Europe has always been in a constant state of war yet still had a higher population than Africa up until a few decades ago

>>8040251
>I just stick around to call out the psychologyfags and economicsfags who isist that they're fields aren't the epitome of pseudoscience

Same.
Well, then and the /x/tards, /pol/tards and the "I swear I'm a genius, let me prove it by using ego fallacies!" jackasses.

>>8040256
Yeah the IQtards are always pretty hilarious especially given that the actual smart discussion threads dealing with difficult physical concepts are completely void of them

>>8040207
>The mutation rate is in fact a lot higher in a larger population.
False!
The mutation rate is LOWER in a larger population of ONLY BROWNS.

>so humanity is more resilient to changes
The white race is already the more resilient: we can adapt to live in every environment, even the poles, the equator, the highest of the mountais or the bottom of the oceans; blacks can't even swim; Asians have smaller bodies, are slower in running, can't even drink milk for Christ sake; whites have the most diverse diet of all, we are present in the major number of sports at the Olympics, motor sports, chess, deep diving… you name it; we range from equitation little jockeys to huge basketball players.

Going by your reasoning, since the whites have the most diverse eye colors, a part of them will survive if that characteristic is the only one requested to survive; request the light gray eyes to an homogenised population of browns with dark eyes and the humanity will be doomed.

>adapt to the disaster
Sure Asians are capable to adapt to certain disasters: see Japanese and earthquakes; but blacks? camon now, give them a simple famine in Africa and they will do absolutely nothing to survive.

>open borders isn't bad for the human gene pool
Only the white countries are forced to "open borders", not Pakistan, not Taiwan or Chile etc. It's the same with feminism, LGBT and gender shit: they are forced in white countries with the ultimate goal to stop them from having children.

>>8040287
>more resilient
It's almost like you unironically believe in objective fitness functions.

>>8040287
>we are present in the major number of sports at the Olympics

Except for the sprinting sports
If you're not from certain West African ethnic groups you will never be an Olympic medalist in a sprinting sport

File: s3.reutersmedia.net.jpg (37KB, 582x429px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 582x429px

>>8040292

sure sure, see pic related...

btw, the terms used were "present" and "major number"

File: bobby-shmurda.jpg (27KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x400px

>>8040276
let me train the brain in a school first nigga

Was Von Neumann truly the next step, an anomaly?

>>8040325
>Ramanujan
FTFY

>>8040307
Based Daphne Schippers

>>8040287
>mutation rate is higher in browns
Citation needed.

>white race is more resilient
If whites are more resilient, specifically certain genes, they will spread throughout humanity.

>whites have the most diverse eye colors
And if eye color ever becomes essential to survival the frequency of diversity will increase. Biodiversity does not need certain genes to be prevalent, just that they exist. Opening borders might reduce the diversity of eye colors but they'll still exist.

>adapt to disaster
That's got to do with government response time and infrastructure. Not genes.

>open borders means only white countries do
Did I ever say that? Nope.

>>8040336
>mutation rate is higher in browns
>Citation needed.
I said "lower" and I was referring to a future population of only browns

>genes will spread
they want to suppress the white genes

>government response
a government is like an organism, or a colony of ants: certain governments are more efficient than others because the genes of the ants working for it are better

try again

>>8040347
>I was referring to a future population of only browns
Yeaaaahhh, I was trying to avoid saying it but, did you just conflate gene pool size with mutation rate? Because that would be a terrible source of confusion if either of you wanted to have a serious discussion here.

>>8036543
Its necessary for europeans to breed with superior arabs and blacks.

File: CeLUgbiWwAAg3Ai.jpg (54KB, 481x703px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 481x703px

>>8040361

sure Richard, sure, nobody will ever notice your master plan

>>8040369
It doesnt matter if they notice. They wont do anything against it anyway.

>>8040372
The same applies to /pol/, FYI.

Meme magic doesn't count as doing something.

>>8040389
All white men will go extinct soon. You didnt hear it from me though.

>>8036543
Its already happening as cuck you with you your wife.

File: 1440896366529.jpg (58KB, 487x480px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 487x480px

>ctrl+f "white"
>33 results

>>8036547
>homogenizing
what if just don't wanna have a kid with down syndrome?

Parent's should not be able to play The Sims with their kids, but they shouldn't have to raise a kid with a serious genetic disease just because you might get offended by their choice.

>>8038570
>only rational post
>no replies; not even a counter argument.
Sure smells jew in here.

>>8036543
>Eugenics
>2016
Woah there grandpa, we don't need slavery and eugenics

We have machines and gene therapy now

>>8036543
You could but the entire argument is centered around morals and ethics.

That and you end up side fucking the human gene pool in a relatively short amount of time.

>>8036543
People themselves are already practicing with eugenics
Most men and women are selective in choosing their breeding partner

>>8038889
yeah, generally tumblrites are pro-choice

>>8039158
>So you think that will be an issue for humans? Eugenics will become a business?

what universe are you living in that you think this won't be an issue?

>>8036543
>Why is eugenics vilified?

Nazis and a history of forced sterilization.

>Why is seeking the optimal outcome bad?

It's not, but what is optimal?

>All morals and ethics aside, could humans be selectively bred to create a better quality of human?

As said above we have been doing this innately for centuries already. How we wound up with so many faggots it beyond me, it seems we were not very good at it.

>>8041127
>Parent's should not be able to play The Sims with their kids
Give me one good reason why they shouldn't.

File: fcs.jpg (103KB, 634x623px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 634x623px

>>8041833
>Most men and women are selective in choosing their breeding partner

they'll go for someone "similar"
which put us at risk that some bad traits will be perpetuated

>>8042182
>How we wound up with so many faggots it beyond me

in this case you have to sterilize who promote that shit in the media:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_people_by_religion

File: fcs2.jpg (87KB, 634x483px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 634x483px

>>8042716

>>8042182

>what is optimal?

>>>/hr/2478971

>>8037135
without white people comming to africa, dumb niggers would still run around half naked with spears in ther hands living in mud/grass houses hunting lions, spreading all kinds of diseases and viruses around just like majority of them do today, in 2016... and its not just niggers same applies to sandniggers and some of the other races. only select few nations from asian race came close to the level of civilizatron and technology white people had. just look at the history of each continent, every race except whites and some asians was too dumb to advance technologically and intellectually. almost everything you kow about today including electricity, was invented by people of white race.
if you ask me, only whites and some asian races are worthy of living on this planet.
we shold have europe australia russia and asia just for ourselves and some asians, evey other race should be moved to africa or america.

>>8042814
that was spoken from the heart.
well said lol

>>8042814
what aboutamericans?

>>8042814
Kind of true but not all niggers are dumb.

>>8042825
not all niggers are dumb?????
you are fucking retarded mate what did niggers contribute to society since whites found them?? oh thats right, nothing.. i can count black people like that on my fingers...

This mousetrap fallacy thread promoting incest and predictive fallacies is still here?
Really?
Apparently the people in this thread don't understand how deduction works.
>4chan
Doesn't really surprise me
>inb4 ad hom nonsense
>I provided a counter argument

>>8042848
ooga booga nooga loo booga nooga nooga looga ooga ooga looga booga

... booga booga loo
ooga looga ooga ooga booga nooga booga ooga ooga!!.

>>8042863
Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the most scientific and reasonable argument of our time.

I love "anchored reactionary" nonsense.
Next use the impatient false dilemma fallacy.
XD

>>8042389
Changing the eye color, skin color and that is superficial, so just keep that natural, changing height and looks shouldn't be changed because you should just look like your parents, the only things that should be changed are health issues like weight, immune system, mental issues.

>>8042830
>contribution of white people to the society: quite a bit
>contributions of niggers to the society: a bit
>contribution of you to the society: none
We all know who needs to go first.

>>8042898
im 29 phd in cs and already on my way for at least a majors in ce, got a little over 130k in savings, got countries bd award, participated in 3 of my countries health and med care reaserches as well as 1 for robotics... so fuck you prejudice faggot.

>>8042898
>contributions of niggers to the society: a bit
So you call under 10 percent of all contributions "a bit" ?!
Are you fucking retarded? Their contributions are basically non existent, not to mention, irrelevant. Same goes for every other race except Asians. That guy sure sounds like a fucking moron but he is right. You can literally googl it and see for yourself, all you will see is a handfull of niggers, handfull of indians a coupl hundred asians and literally everyone else is white. White people and Asians are responsible for the technology and the way of life you are living today.

>>8043029
lol double degrees... is it worth it?

>>8043061
>B-but what about m-my race diversity anon?
Why would you need race diversity, when the other races dont offer any superior abilities out of the cognitive spectrum?

You would create less intelligent human beings and slow down our progress just to have more human races which means nothing to humanity except for more people of lower intelligence and more colors walking down the street.

>>8043061
>So you call under 10 percent of all contributions "a bit" ?!
Yes. 10% is huge enough. Many people are killing themselves for 10 or 5% increase in something.
>>8043029
Should've gotten a degree in English instead.

>>8043029
It's easy sounding tough behind a keyboard, isn't it?

File: 1460903811861.jpg (84KB, 600x443px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x443px

We've done it successfully for thousands of years in other animals.

But in the end the question doesn't matter. Someone - likely the Chinese - will do it and get it right, and the world will belong to the new ubermensch.

>>8043108
"Race doesn't exist" is a strawman.
Social constructs obviously DO exist.
Look at car insurance, for instance.

>>8038566
This is the only thing wrong with Eugenics. We breed livestock. It would work on people.

It would reduce us to livestock in someone's farm and that farmer would define better to suit themselves.

>>8036543
>Why is eugenics vilified?
It didn't work for the Greeks more tan 2000 years ago so there is no chance it will work today.

Real question is: why do we keep having these questions??

>>8038570

Culling the population is something natural selection once enforced.

Now that we are insulated from predators coupled with disease being tamed through prevention and pharmacology there is no pressure on the human population to favor certain characteristics.

>>8043085

>muh cognitive ability

Not that anon but man gets attack on the micro level every fucking day. You want the diversity for shit like immunology and bone density not necessarily for cognition otherwise we'll turn into a specialist species that couldn't walk ten feet out of their "special" zone before getting fucked by nature because of being perpetual glass cannons.

Shit like skin cancer, osteoporosis and infections by mosquitoes is too omnipresent to be simply ignored. Let the diversity stay and augment the low intelligence average through gene therapy and human computer technology.

Unless you plan to spray aerosols in the entire atmosphere to block all the uv rays, create some miracle drug that auto regenerates bone mineral/ prevents your body from absorbing it and make the misquote completely extinct.

>>8043150

No, everyone will became "the farmer".
I'll make replicas of Emma Watson, and they'll decide what kind of grand-children I'll have.
It'll be illegal only to procreate retards, cripples, autists, downs, violent negers, gypsies and you.

>>8043090
>Yes. 10% is huge enough. Many people are killing themselves for 10 or 5% increase in something.
I'm not saying 10 percent is generally irrelevant, but in this case it is. When you combine less than 10 percent with useless, so called "contributions" and most of them are in; close to pointless, meaningless social sciences and compare it to everything white people or asians did, you see how irrelevant and meaningless they were/still are to our society and future of technological and intelectual development.

>>8043205
We have asians for everything you just said.We can be "diverse" with them, since they are the only race that advanced without the help of whites, not completely of course. So my point still stands, whites and asians can easily be superior to everyone else physically and especially intellectually. Whites are the superior ones, always were and will always be, I'm not being racist here, out of all of the races only asians show potential to surpass us, so it makes sense to breed the only 2 superior races together.

>>8043091
you think i just made that all up kid? go fuck yourself or do something useful with your life

>>8043221

Anon do you have a source to prove the 10% associated to non white/asian contribution is primarily with subjects related to social sciences? Because most of the notable contributions in history by groups outside those two have been based on specialized math models, applied engineering techniques, language and medicinal practices.

Also even if this was the case the contributions are still useful because they ultimately contribute to fields such as cluster analysis, data mining, epidemiology research and linguistics in relation to syntax structures.

>>8043217
Ah but someone will hire you and you'll eugenic yourself to suit them. You'll be farmed by someone else even if you sign up for it yourself. And this years fashion maven is next year's fashion victim....

>>8043285
>someone will hire you

No man, there'll be no more shitlords, bad governments, kikes, banksters and the like.
It'll be a plutocracy of equal and enlightened men that know exactly what they're doing, what's legal and what's not.
Scream "gimme-dat" in a chimp-out and you are out.

File: 1461797985514.png (642KB, 480x516px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 480x516px

>>8043255

>we have asians

You could argue that for cases like skin cancer where they do have lower risk than whites but not lower than blacks, but the "we have asians" mantra won't cut it for shit like degenerate bone conditions like osteoporosis.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.87.7.8654

http://www.niams.nih.gov/Health_Info/Bone/Osteoporosis/Background/asian_american_women.asp

Their health habits reduce the incidence of fractures but not the risk of the condition itself. And they also have lower density than whites which highlights the negligence on the part of whites when it comes to overall health.

Also risk of death by diseases such as dengue, yellow fever and malaria are lower among african populations because of their adapting to malaria itself causing efficient vitamin A storage.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987713003939

So once again the "we have asians" mantra doesn't cut it.

>>8036547
Terrible misconception.

Gene manipulation does not at all necessitate homogenation. You can filter out certain traits while promoting others while maintaining a high degree of diversity.

>>8042814
Jesus...

>>8042814
agree

File: tmp_14413-1462149583059(2)-495146262.jpg (742KB, 1502x1958px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 1502x1958px

>>8038570
No.

>>8041205
>rational
No.

>>8042814
this is the truth

>>8042814
Yes, we all know that's your bottom line. Thanks for making it painfully obvious.

Man, who could have known this thread would take such a direction.

10/10 quality thread. keep it up.

>>8038523
>Show me a scenario now where Huntington's is better than not having Huntington's.
Ok. Here goes - be a completely normal male with Huntington's. Be unaware you have Huntington's. Live a completely normal conservative life with a wife and two kids. At about age 40 symptoms begin to show. You become much less inhibited and more compulsive and impulsive. You become addicted to gambling and sex with strangers. As a result you end up impregnating 25 women before you drop dead at the age of 42.
From an evolutionary perspective, this guy was wildly more successful than his male peers.
If you're not going to define "better", then you're opening yourself up to interpretations of what "better" entails. There are traits that people with Huntington's have that CAN have an evolutionary advantage in some cases. Your opinion on whether those traits are desirable or not is irrelevant.

>>8044598

Not that anon but while I get the example you presented this scenario would only be "successful" pre 90's where women weren't quite as privy about a man's background, investigation of medical history wasn't accessible and abortion wasn't wildly available.

As soon as the women find out lover boy has a wife (cause you know women will FUCKING TALK) at least two thirds of them will have an abortion (because unless the guy kept his family a secret to his wife she will notice one of his family members suffer from Huntington's disease and tell them off).

So at best he'll get 8 women to actually have children, half of those children will most likely inherit the disease. And the guy's family will definitely catch some serious flack for the four kids who got it bad.

So more successful than his peers? Yup. As successful as you were originally proclaiming? Nope.

>>8044638
And you're totally right. Those are all likely outcomes. My only point was that to dismiss Huntington's as an undesirable biological condition rests on how you define what "better" is. There's no fucking way that I would personally see it as being better, but I can definitely see how it still exists in this world. It does have its evolutionary advantages in its own sick and twisted way...

Original 1872 essay On Chorea by George Huntington
“At present I know of two married men, whose wives are living, and who are constantly making love to some young lady, not seeming to be aware that there is any impropriety in it. They are suffering from chorea to such an extent that they can hardly walk, and would be thought, by a stranger, to be intoxicated. They are men of about 50 years of age, but never let an opportunity to flirt with a girl go past unimproved. The effect is ridiculous in the extreme."

>>8036543
>All morals and ethics aside

13 year olds shouldn't post here.

File: m.png (575KB, 704x528px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 704x528px

>>8038668
Sort of form over function, but more precisely, selecting for ONE MORPHOLOGICAL TRAIT and not the NET FITNESS OF THE POPULATION. Dog breeds have been bred for short noses, long hair, large body size, long legs, and color patterns, to name a few examples. We can maximize one trait, but when you do, you sometimes do so at the expense of others, which is why you sometimes have dog breeds that are all fucked up inside, with organ problems and bad joints and all that.

I never understand why people really care desu. What business is it to you if a retard breeds or not? Why would you care about us potentially being a stronger race 300 years from now, when you'll be dead anyway.

Surely you have better things to worry about. Like you know, your own life.

File: image.jpg (99KB, 732x606px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 732x606px

>>8044709

>>8044709
> not giving about humanity and next generations is a good thing
stop posting anytime

>>8044738
How very noble of you, deciding who can breed and who can't for the sake of humanity. No hypocricy here at all.

File: america.jpg (675KB, 3141x2356px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 3141x2356px

>>8040287
>whites have the most diverse diet of all

you mean you occasionally order the #4 instead of the #7?

>>8042825
>thinking that outliers matter in a genetics debate

Bruv, if you really wanted to you could take the seed from the most perfect Black specimen you had ever found in order to spread the superior genes to a large number of women.

But why do that when the Black outlier will statistically still be far inferior to the White outlier?

Every race has outliers. Whites are more intelligent than Blacks, and White outliers are more intelligent than Black outliers.

>>8044743
> It's wrong for you to think who should breed or not.
> You should let others decide your generations for you
was that you trying to troll or something ? go sit in a dark corner and cut off your dick please. You're not gonna breed with that mentality anyway

>>8043189
>Now that we are insulated from predators coupled with disease being tamed through prevention and pharmacology there is no pressure on the human population to favor certain characteristics.

>We have a society where nobody is more succesful than others

[[citation needed]]

>>8044775
>> It's wrong for you to think who should breed or not.
>> You should let others decide your generations for you

>Not realizing that #2 is exactly what you're trying to do.

You dense faggot, the exact problem is people trying to decide for others who their descendants should be.

File: racial preferences in dating.jpg (193KB, 521x917px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 521x917px

>>8037252
Not true.

>>8044888
Yeah, keep your head down faggot. I'll decide your generation and your offsprings for you, since you're in favor for the idea that you shouldn't.

>>8042814
You have never picked up a non European/American history book have you

>>8044913
Actually we have a place for you and your kind, and we'll be putting you there soon. So sit tight. it's almost over.

>>8044922
Oh don't you be deciding where people should go you oppressor evil person D:

>>8042814

To be fair, Arabs were quite scientifically advanced while Europe was still suffering from the Dark Ages.

>>8044913
>Yeah, keep your head down faggot. I'll decide your generation and your offsprings for you, since you're in favor for the idea that you shouldn't.

Whatever gave you that idea? I'm in favor of the idea that YOU shouldn't.

>>8045027
> I decide that who should decide the future generations for everyone
lmao. dream on faggot

>>8036543
Theoretically yes, is possible without doubt. But as said before is pratically almost impossible, because scientists should consider enviremental long-term variables, such global warming, future new deseases, wars and stuff like that
>inb4 Illuminati do those changes hurr durr