Would it not benefit humanity in the long run, considering we

Sorry bad English

File: 1391868199499.png (747KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1280x720px

Just let the chinks genetically engineer 250 IQ superhumans. Us non-engineered subhumans need not breed at all.

>>8293651
The idea of genetic determination is pretty much taboo. Eugenics is seen as a massive violation of human rights (even if victimless) and there's a drive to focus on some common human essence that is somehow still disconnected from genes, regardless of capability, and level the field (remove hindrances, slacken standards, control language) for those less able rather than celebrate those more able.

These are the times (in the West). Check your privilege.

>>8293656
Pretty much this ever seen that kurzsagt video welp here is the link anyway https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

>>8293651
You have no idea about the amount of contempt I feel for people like you.

>>8293718
Why?

>>8293651
It would be at great cost to personal liberty that most people aren't willing to pay.

It would be pointless anyway, considering our recently acquired and continually refined capability to manipulate genes directly.

>>8293651
>>>/pol/

File: Overlord.jpg (2MB, 5200x4248px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5200x4248px

It would have benefitted humanity greatly if we had started weeding out the idiots in the 19th century when we first learned about artificial selection.

Now I think it's too late. Computer Overlords will make us all look dumb before 2030 comes. So in essense it doesn't matter anymore.

>>8293651
education, the real key to personal worth through brainmeats, isn't hereditary

but what you want already basically happens because of the price of schooling being so high and the nature of wealthy families staying wealthy while poor families stay poor

>>8293744
I suppose he does have contempt because what you think of as "genetics" is actually just your caveman understanding of filiation.
Geniuses don't have geniuses baby.

Removing genetic hereditary diseases that are life threatening might be a good thing. Anything more than that becomes subjective at best.

Realistically, how do you judge one person's DNA to be better than the next? What arbitrary goals does one need to accomplish to be judged greater than another and how do you prove that's it's genetic and not cultural, environmental, or an educational problem?

Eugenics is not science, get it through your head.
Until we know more about genetics we can't reliably produce only desirable traits in a human bean.

>>8293818
Yes, they do. IQ is highly heritable, and the income of parents is largely the same as the income of their children.

Unless you're someone who thinks that IQ means nothing, in which case, we have an entirely different debate.

Yes, it would be. However, the wealthy elites of the world do not want to be displaced as the cream of the crop. A stupid working class is far more economic for them than a proper eugenics program. No money in it.

>>8293651

It's already happening. It'll be the rich getting to IQ enhancement tech first and turning lower classes into dumb work and pleasure slaves.

That's literally the endgame until runaway cybernetics produces autonoumous goal-reaching intelligences.

>>8293826
Sure, we can only get desirable traits in dogs and cats and plants and flies and literally everything else except humans.

It must be because humans are perfect beings created by a magical sky daddy and every change would be for the worse.

>>8293651
uhuh the sociopaths that are the ruling elite is sure something we need more of.

File: image.jpg (71KB, 579x820px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 579x820px

>>8293981
>desirable traits in dogs

Humans are pretty shitty when it comes to eugenics.

No it's retarded. There are too many variabels that we can't factor in.

What you might define as "not the best genetics" could be a guy who changes the world.

Take a look at the parents of the best scientists / astronauts / leaders / artists we've had. Most of them wouldn't have been matched by your definition.

Natural selection is the best process forward.

>>8294005
But we didn't breed wolves to be better wolves. We bred them to be chill/funny looking/good at herding livestock/good companions/whatever.

>>8293981

> Sure, we can only get desirable traits in dogs and cats and plants and flies and literally everything else except humans.

Have you seen or read about the 'trade offs' that come with those desirable traits?

Also did you forget the life span of humans easily exceed the life span of all your examples you posted and therefore acts as a significant time and resource intensive barrier in finding and replicating desire traits through eugenics?

I mean if you never wanna have sex again that's cool OP. Why would your grill fuck u when she can fuck Chad Alphaman? There would be much less variation as most people are butt ugly.

>>8294055

The trade-of fs aren't necessarily about polymorphism of good traits with negative traits (although it would be interesting if a significant number were) but mixing every piece of bad information, as long as it has a "trait-being-selected-for" tag and purposeful breeding for "aesthetic" qualities, even if they lead to complications and shorter lifespans.

Humans already practice eugenics. Smart men, on average, marry smart women (and fuck dumb ones on the side). Beautiful women marry beautiful men (and become mistresses/side sluts of rich ones).

Of course in humanity, the beautiful is often paired with the smart. Advantages roll on top of each other on the hill, disadvantages dig deeper and deeper holes in the pit. Thus the "unfairness" of reality and the attempt to abolish this unfairness.

The reality is that if I would grab more smart people from a bag of "beautiful people" than I would a bag of "ugly people".

>>8293651
>Would it not benefit humanity

[loaded statement]

>>8295020

"He who invokes humanity is cheating." - Carl Schmitt

The older I get, the more I realize how retarded a notion like "humanity" is. Genetic engineering will only mock that word further.

>>8293818
You're living proof if your parents are intelligent.

>>8293651
>BREAKING NEWS: Black kid performs altruistic act

>>8293818

Geniuses don't have geniuses but groups of smart people breeding produce smarter people.

EX: Ashkenazi jews, American Episcopalians, Nigerian Yoruba, the fucking Japanese and their visual IQ jesus fucking christ

File: IMG_5795.jpg (41KB, 650x350px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 650x350px

Sup guys, beautiful outside

>>8295053
while i don't agree with just being like "lol this thread is hitler," eugenics is pretty autistic.
just like hitler.

File: idiocracy-not-sure-if-comedy-or-documentary.jpg (123KB, 735x735px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 735x735px

>>8293651
while I dont necessarily agree with OP

the "idiocracy" premise scares me a little

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E

If they human race really wanted the world to thrive, we would all kill ourselves.

>>8295885
>the "idiocracy" premise scares me a little
You're an idiot

>>8293651
>the "elites" or the "alpha genetic" individuals
Social "elites" are a completely different
sub-population from the "alpha genetic"
individuals, pleb.

>>8295891
how so?
there is some undeniable truth to it

>>8293651
>"science based" government
ain't a-gonna happen, bcoz:
• science is about learning
• government is about power
geddit?

eugenics is an idea created by autists whose dumb ideas made them think Aryan genetics made them physically, morally, and intellectually superior and which is now parroted by autists who can't get pussy and think under a government breeding program they might finally get laid

We've already got a sophisticated breeding program in place.

>spend your youth pursuing abstract knowledge at the expense of wealth and power, slaving away to enrich someone else
>prioritize transient pleasure over building a strong tribe
>die childless, or with only one child who is as weak as you are

Not so smart after all, huh?