Should soft eugenics be implemented?

>>8822017
We're at an awkward development point, where natural selection has lost its mediating force. But it's followed by direct manipulation of DNA, so there's really no reason to worry.

But yeah, if we didn't do that or a form of eugenics, we'd eventually end up going the way of the sunfish.

File: image.jpg (39KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 499x499px

>soft

>>8822017
You are such a brainlet you dont even know that selective breeding is inferior to genetic engineering.

We only have this thread like every day.

>>8822017
Ultimately plebs will be killed or improved. In the meantime think of them as providing a natural IQ test in which you have to try and not die.

>>8822069
Genetically engineering billions of people? How and on what time period. Even with genetic engineering, selective breeding would still be necessary. unless you can somehow convince billions of people to stop breeding, you would create a huge claw divide between these people. The idea is to raise the mean genetic quality. Genetic engineering will be at the forefront of that, but if breeding is not controlled it will not matter unless you are literally mass producing genetically engineered individuals

File: image (11).jpg (59KB, 596x381px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 596x381px

>soft
We should euthanize anyone with sub 90 IQ desu senpai

>>8822084
Genetically engineering people is not feasible but genetically engineered zygotes are feasible. It will be decades before we agree on the next human and then all you have to do is convince everyone to implant a new and improved embryo rather than conceive naturally. At least until all the old humans are washed out

>>8822100
You first. How do we know you have an above 90 IQ? What if we said you had 85 IQ. Doesn't feel so great now, does it?

File: 1489692836783.jpg (9KB, 228x215px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 228x215px

>>8822105
>You first
Thanks!
>Doesn't feel ask great now, does it?
No it feels awesome. I want to die.

>soft eugenics
no, giving any oversight of reproducing into the government's hands is beyond retarded.

There are very few examples in history, whether it be in art or science, where the offspring lives up to their parents' achievements. Upbringing and educational environment plays a bigger role instead.

>>8822112
S-stop. This wasn't the response I was expecting.

>>8822118
>S-stop
You're so cute, anon~

>>8822084
Are you saying that:

Democratized, elective, genetic engineering done in the same way dentistry is done today is more expencive than: Convincing the smart to breed as much as the middle of the bell curve?

If your objective is to raise the numbers of good genes, surely increasing the number of vessals for those genes is also the objective. And dont talk to me of a huge devide between genetically engineered primes and sub primes, when your system has the same basic fault. Atleast my system is open to anyone rather than just a small portion of the population like yours.

Besides, if smart people truely were, they would have figured out how to breed more. Humanity has a long way to go.

A side note: Understanding what you have said and replying to it requires understanding some assumptions you have made. For example the statent: "selective breeding would still be necessary. unless you can somehow convince billions of people to stop breeding" is orphined without justification. Perhapse you should be more precise when forming your statments.

Anyway im going running now so i cant continue you bat ideas back and forth with you.

enough of your tricks anon we know you are just trying to make excuses for a government granted gf

File: golden-one.jpg (14KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 320x320px

No, let biology take its course. If we optimize for one thing, we might be adversely affecting other traits in the human population.

File: wp_ss_20170408_0001.png (424KB, 720x795px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 720x795px

>>8822017
A lot of people are saying this isn't an issue because muh genetic engineering. The gradual decrease of mental ability (IQ in this case) is a serious problem coupled with overpopulation. As awful as it sounds, the only solution is to conspire against the human cattle and wither their numbers. They don't produce, they only consume. Low IQ people are like dairy cows that never give any milk. Feed them all you want, they'll just keep being useless (even counterproductive in most cases). High IQ people need to look out for each other and simultaneously screw over the low intelligence human cattle.

>>8822117
You need to pass a test before you can drive a car, but there is no requirement for having a child.

>>8822167
because the government wants to ensure public safety, hence the issuing of driving licenses.

you can't really pre-emptively find out potential hazards from having a kid.

>>8822140
>might be
I'll take my chances

>>8822140
Are you calling for the end of civilization?

File: beauty89.jpg (149KB, 601x945px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 601x945px

Let's say it should. We assume that eugenics are a thing that should be done. The decision has been made. (1)
Stupid people are the majority, in any country, and in the world as a whole (2)
Stupid people are violent, don't understand basic logic, mathematics, are primitive, are basically animals who can speak (3)
Stupid people rebel and are violent and even capable of murder when they gather in a herd and start demanding things because life / govt has been unfair to them (4)
Intelligent people are the minority (5)
Intelligent people are weak, physically and emotionally because they value their lives more than a normie does (6)
Capitalism. People want to make money from other people, from masses of people. Masses are dumb. Masses need to be satisfied to a certain degree in order to profit from them (7)

now tell me, from (1) to (7), do you think those arguments imply that eugenics is feasible IRL? do you think that practicing eugenics (which I think is the rational decision, too, don't get me wrong here) is something that can happen IRL?

there's no incentive

it's impossible

IMO, unless an AI starts ruling the world and manages to violently subjugate the entire human race and starts imposing these rules forcibly, without giving a shit about repercussions, riots, and so on

>>8822227
i mean, look at how people rage over stem cell research, bioengineering, implants, etc because of the most inane reasons, like religion or muh feels

unless this happens suddenly and with an incredible force and efficiency it can't be done

in reality we'll only have this
>>8822140

evolution will take care of things
what if stupidity will be more advantageous to the human race? who knows, time will tell

maybe evolution will makes us stabilize as tribal societies or some other stupid ass shit, it can't guarantee eugenics, AI, space colonization and etc

File: 1486008605614.jpg (219KB, 982x651px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 982x651px

>>8822017
Evolution isn't meant for high IQ. Otherwise, the majority of the people making babies wouldn't be dumb as a box of nails.

What you need is a program that focuses on smart people, trying to get them to have more children.

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

isn't giving people lifetime prison sentences eugenics?

>>8822268
this
stupidity is evolutionarily more useful, more effective than intelligence, stupid people profit from the newest technologies, they use those new developments to be more healthier, to fuck more and be more degenerate, like a tapeworm clings to your guts and eats your shit and ejaculates eggs through your anus

that's a lot more effective than a dumbass like Newton who wasn't able to make 1 children. Now, there are exceptions, like Euler, who had like 10 or 15 kids and 2 wifes and was basically a millionaire at the end of his life and lived like a king, but it's a number's game. In the end, every moron and his wife have at least 2-3 kids. Muslims make like half a dozen kids or more. Some people fuck and have so many kids that they make me think they want to re-learn the multiplication table. 5 times 5, 9 times 8, kek, get it? I know I'm funny.

tl;dr there's no evolutionary incentive to make intelligence a dominant gene when stupid / uneducated people leech and shit out kids like there's no tomorrow. Imposing intelligence artificially, by practicing eugenics, will NOT be succesful. You'll be trying to directly hurt 99.99% (or more, depending on your definition of "high enough" intelligence) people, and they WON'T like it.

>>8822084
It's not impossible to do it over many generations.

Either way, I'd prioritize people having the freedom to have kids to 'raising the mean genetic quality' as quickly as possible.

We need to think what humans actually live for.

File: Olleys+Armies+Biochamber+2.jpg (20KB, 282x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 282x400px

>>8822017
Genetics will only play a small role. What you need is an experience generating machine.
Get your virtual reality hats on. We are going in dry. Or wet if we can set up a bio chamber.

>>8822017
I often wonder about the potential of somebody creating an organization that pays certain couples to have more kids and people with certain high risk congenital deformities not to have kids.
I'm sure people would complain even though it's well within both legal and moral boundaries.

What we need to do is eliminate government. The government funds the welfare state which is a disgenic program. And without government safety nets, smaller tribes will form in order to survive and the most adaptable people will survive.

>>8822584
We put all welfare recipients in the V.R biochambers/V.R home units.
Let them play to learn and earn.
Everyone wins.

>>8822584
a 1.90m tall nigger would be more adaptable in that situation than, I don't know, some random genial white dude

1.90m tall nigger vs Euler
who wins?