Why don't we cherry pick human sperms to create healthier,

>>8123739
We do. It's called sperm donation.

>>8123739
We do, Anon, it's called courting.

Women pick the men they want to have inseminate them, at least, more often than not in the developed world.

As a result, not much happens. Because people, women included, are kinda dumb, and our current society does just fine despite having 0 breeding pressure.

>>8123739
because we don't eat humans

farm animals and "pure breed" pets are retarded as fuck too.

>>8123743
>>8123744
You misunderstand me. It's acceptable for women to be inseminated by a set of sperms, a load so to say. Cherry picking 1 (ONE), the healthiest sperm in a load collected through analyzing however, is not. This is however accepted for breeding large animals as in the picture, which we eat.
>>8123745
The result wouldn't be genetically superior people for eating, but smarter, healthier people with less weaknesses.

File: Terra Formars 055.png (524KB, 1097x1600px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 1097x1600px

>>8123739
>create healthier, stronger and smarter people
Because pic related is a better idea
>>8123747
>smarter, healthier people with less weaknesses.

>>8124623
>tfw you will never breed with michelle san to further the human race
WHY EVEN MAINTAIN A SOLID STATE!

File: 1463390522890.png (586KB, 640x634px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 640x634px

>>8123739
our society is set up to appease the short guys and beta males, and let them have women so they don't rampage and destroy society.

maybe when society becomes more efficient, we can kill them off.

>>8124675
Short & betas have (i.e. feed) women, but only women choose whose child they bear, regardless of feeder.
Unfortunately, women being tragically dumb thus unable to recognize quality - they opt for most visible and/or noisy peacock.

>>8124675
>our society is set up to appease the short guys and beta males
are you baiting or are you actually retarded enough to think that, out of every demographic on earth, manlets are the problem that eugenics is supposed to fix?

>>8124731
angry manlet detected

>>8124733
angry lanklet detected

>cherry pick sperm
>do nothing about the eggs

Okay...

because apparently that would make us Nazis, or some bullshit

>>8124774
>>cherry pick sperm
>>do nothing about the eggs
Exactly.

Thank you anon.

>>8124832
>identitarian left won't let us make humanity better and eradicate genetical diseases
okay..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repository_for_Germinal_Choice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

read a fackking book

>>8125050
>people are happy and live in roles suited to their talents

Clearly this is a dystopia.

File: swas.jpg (14KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 600x401px

>Why don't we cherry pick human sperms to create healthier, stronger and smarter people, just as we do with the animals we eat?

The ONLY problem is how do you determine what's better? With animals it's easy because you can creates a subspecies that's geared towards a specific goal. But ideally the goal for human evolution is not to be specialized at birth. Ideally you want humans to be generalized at birth with great potential for anything and for them to specialize later on in life. If you try to make humans specialized for a task then what you're really doing is creating a subspecies of humans that don't have any potential in life except for 1 task. That's both demeaning to humans and creating something that different is just asking for a race war. As is human nature we tend to hate, be fearful or, kill anything that's like but just a little too different. (see uncanny divide, or any religious/race war in history) You might think to just improve human in a general manner then, such as increased intelligence, but how do you measure intelligence? Is it a high IQ (/sci/ knows IQ is pointless, is it creativity, adaptability, social skills, memorization, or pure logic that makes one "smarter." How do you objectively define "better" in the most generalized way possible? You can't do it.