/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10047426]

Memes aside, can eugenics actually work to advance human physical and cognitive abilities?

[Anonymous No.10047427]

>>10047426

yes

[Anonymous No.10047437]

>>10047427
No

[Anonymous No.10047438]

>>10047426
Maybe

[Anonymous No.10047441]

>>10047438
I don’t know

[Anonymous No.10047445]

No. Eugenics is how you get people with allergies to everything outside, early cancers, and deformed anatomy that requires corrective surgery to have marginal qualities of life.

[Anonymous No.10047456]

>>10047445
Uh no? Do you know what eugenics is?

[Anonymous No.10047462]

>>10047426
no

[Anonymous No.10047466]

>>10047445
This, we need to import more tribesmen(but no women of coures) to breed with our women and we just to watch, our genes are inferior. No civilization is great enough for the superiority of physicality

[Anonymous No.10047532]

>>10047456
i do! it's a mistake.

[Anonymous No.10047538]

>>10047427
>>10047437
>>10047438
>>10047441
:^)

[Anonymous No.10047540]

We could conceivable eliminate Whiteness in a generation or two given the will, unlikely that privilege will relinquish itself though

[Anonymous No.10047572]

>>10047426
Humans are too retarded to pick what genes are the best. Thats why nature does the job

[Anonymous No.10047577]

>>10047426
Yes probably at what cost though. Eugenics seems great until its decided that you are one of the inferior people.

[Anonymous No.10047590]

>>10047577
who tf wants kids, those unfit for breeding can receive compensation and live lives of hedonism while those fit for breeding can give their superior offspring to the state should they choose to not raise them (interferes with career, etc.)

[Anonymous No.10047619]

>>10047590
>those unfit for breeding can receive compensation and live lives of hedonism
That is what they will tell you but really they will round up all the neets and dump them in a mass grave somewhere

[Anonymous No.10047627]

>>10047445
explain to a brainlet pls

[Anonymous No.10047638]

>>10047426
It works for domestic animals and thus ethics aside, would work for humans, too.

[Anonymous No.10047651]

>>10047627
Breeding for a specific trait can cause other traits that are linked genetically but not desirable to appear. Some examples of this can be seen in livestock animals; animals are selectively bred to have more meat or thicker fur, but they end up being unable to give birth without assistance because of messed up birth canals or odd self destructive behaviors or extremely shortened life spans.

All of this is a complete non-issue with gene editing technology since we can specifically target only the genes we want and if we get some bad side effect we can just turn that one back off.

[Anonymous No.10047658]

>>10047540
Why would you eliminate whiteness?
How is whiteness privilege?

You has to be nigger to get something free. Why can't even tell they are white.

[Anonymous No.10047661]

>>10047590
You would need to take care of that offspring... Intelligently.

[Anonymous No.10047727]

>>10047426
>can eugenics actually work to advance human physical and cognitive abilities?
Yes.
As a final test in compulsory education, send the adolescent of your country in randomly selected batches of 10 to a nature preserve filled with the dangerous creatures native to the country.
Those that survive are superior, and have earned the right to reproduce. Those that don't... We don't have to worry about them.
This gets rid of any of the usual problems eugenics has and should result in stronger, smarter people than conventional eugenics.

[Anonymous No.10047790]

>>10047658
White genes are generally recessive. By restricting the sexual opportunities of white males and breeding white females with Black men, Whiteness could become a thing of the past, and all the inherent oppression of Whiteness with it

[Anonymous No.10047797]

>>10047577

Implement a children quota, where the population which must be culled away can only have 1 child per couple, where other groups can have more than 1.
You will have a population replacement without the drama, since they will have passed their genes anyway but will disappear in the general pool.

[Anonymous No.10047818]

>>10047727
Are there any flaws in this?

[Anonymous No.10047837]

>>10047818
No the spartans did something similar where they left weak babies in the woods to die

[Anonymous No.10047840]

>>10047818

Yes, you might be selecting for insane cannibals who die when are 20 years old and are good only at smashing things with rocks.
Also by sending them you might skew selection in the direction of doing the bare minumum during education and training like madmen to survive, hence having literate cavemen and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.10047855]

>>10047818
Since most of 4chans populace is beta white dudes this won't fly here

[Anonymous No.10047879]

>>10047651
its even worse with gene editing technology due to poor understanding of the underlying mechanics but your critique of eugenics is still a good one.

[Anonymous No.10047888]

>>10047426
That image looks like it was edited to hide the bottom half. What is the irriginal pic in the OP?

[Anonymous No.10047890]

>>10047727
>dangerous creatures
What is this reddit meme? I often see this brought up as a reason for why Africans haven't advanced beyond spear chucking by themselves. There are several ways to evade "dangerous creatures" that wouldn't select for superior ability at all. A better test would be to have adolescents survive winter by themselves. It requires more than strength, and you can't outrun cold. This is why obviously Europe is a harsher environment than Africa.

[Anonymous No.10047899]

>>10047888

[Anonymous No.10047916]

>>10047797
this is actually a great idea

[Anonymous No.10047919]

>>10047837
I seriously question the spartans medical expertise to determine if a baby had a problem that would manifest into a negative trait once he was an adult, except for the most horrible of mutations that would have caused it to die shortly anyway without modern medicine

[Anonymous No.10048039]

>>10047890
Yeah and that's also obviously why every form of civilization developed in warm river valleys and were building geometrically perfect megastructures while Europeans were living in huts made of sticks and pig shit. Unfortunately your neat just-so story falls apart at the slightest touch of evidence.

[Anonymous No.10048073]

>>10047426
Does natural selection work? If so, yes.

[Anonymous No.10048095]

>>10047890
Did you miss the part where I specify the country this should take place in?
Read it and you'll notice it should take place in your country, whoever is reading this.
Every group has a place, that group should know how to live in the wilderness of that place if shit were to ever hit the fan.
This means, environment and creatures will be unique to your place.

[Anonymous No.10048121]

>>10047840
>Yes, you might be selecting for insane cannibals who die when are 20 years old and are good only at smashing things with rocks.
Surviving in the wilderness doesn't suddenly turn you into a more primitive human, but to satisfy you I'll add this:
Only humans that haven't killed, eaten or some other barbaric shit can be listed on the might be able to breed list, each child is taxed (this will encourage the rich, which are usually the smarter of the population, to have more children as a status symbol and discourage the poor, which are more likely to be less smart, from having as many children).
>Also by sending them you might skew selection in the direction of doing the bare minumum during education and training like madmen to survive, hence having literate cavemen and nothing more.
The child tax will solve this issue, since the rich, those that are more likely to be smarter and study more than the bare minimum, will be able to breed without having to care about the tax as much as the poor.

[Anonymous No.10048124]

>>10048121
>that haven't killed, eaten
Eaten another human*

[Anonymous No.10048193]

Eugenics is already seeing widespread use. It's called abortion and birth control.

[Anonymous No.10049790]

>>10048193
the problem is that neither are widely practiced by the underclass of the world

[Anonymous No.10049916]

>>10049790
>the problem is that neither are widely practiced by the underclass of the world
What about a simple solution.
Tax for each child, it worked in China.

[Anonymous No.10049933]

>>10048039
Living in huts in northern areas is a bigger accomplishment than building a stone pyramid in a warm valley, you idiot.

This strong selective pressure is why whites have the highest average intelligence and are responsible for modern civilization, while mud races never progressed beyond arranging rocks in geometrical structures.

[Anonymous No.10049996]

>>10047540
Troll post, but it's a dangerous one my dude. I suspect at this point it's just a matter of eye for an eye for the people thinking like you. That itself is obsolete and mostly bad practice, applying that to a dumb generalization is absolutely retarded. Assume all whites are priviledged if you want, like I'll istinctively be more cautious when encountering a black unknown guy in an isolated street at night, that's experience telling you what to expect. But don't act on it indiscriminately and don't generalize or you will pave the way for the death of anything meaningful in life. This should go the same for the truly priviledged people, they shouldn't think of themselves as superior by default, but if you don't realize what I'm writing about all this might aswell be a liberal cuck meme image and I'd get the same reaction out of you.

[Anonymous No.10050593]

>>10048193
How?
Women aren't selecting for anything

[Anonymous No.10050894]

>>10050593
>Women aren't selecting for anything
They are, disabilities mainly.

[Anonymous No.10050905]

>>10047426
Yeah but why do you want that

[Anonymous No.10051603]

>>10049933
All white genes are recessive and therefore weak and bad.

[Miniature Spacecraft No.10051614]

>>10047426
No because Human is too complex. You can't select the best like a simple bacteria

[Anonymous No.10051619]

>>10051603

>implying that dominant traits are better
>failing this hard at genetics
>being this bait

[Anonymous No.10051622]

>>10047466
>13 and edgy
>a complete introductory guide to understand juvenile shitposting behavior and shit mentality

[Miniature Spacecraft No.10051624]

>>10051619
He is not wrong, strange that only white people want to be pure and engineering themselves.

[Anonymous No.10051628]

>>10051624
it's not strange at all it's because of the recessive genes as anonymous poster pointed out

[Anonymous No.10051635]

>>10051624

are you honestly affirming that an allele dominance or recessive behaviour is linked to a straight dichotomy of positive/negative biological outcome?

you can have genetic illnesses due to both dominand and recessive genes.

also engineering is only done by whites, what did you think that the Tutsi genocide was?
it was a form of genetics done through extermination.

[Anonymous No.10051646]

>>10049996
What's dangerous is Whiteness. White people are incapable of acting in a non discriminatory way, as Whiteness is not possible without a group to discriminate against. Only by eliminating Whiteness can we move to a situation where discrimination, notions of superiority and privilege can be dealt with.

[Anonymous No.10051771]

>>10047426
Yes, but first we have to find out what the best genes are and if there even are best genes out there.

[Anonymous No.10051773]

>>10051646
Go back to tumblr

[Anonymous No.10051780]

>>10051628
Recessive genes are usually superior in an organism in terms of maximizing fitness.

[Anonymous No.10051795]

>>10051646
So let's stop discrimination by adding more discrimination, I think you're onto something here

[Anonymous No.10051796]

>>10047426

Yes, it was already working nicely until social welfare and then foreign aid started to be used.

At this point society encourages dysgenics by supporting people.

[Anonymous No.10051807]

>>10047426
No, physical and cognitive abilities will only decrease from here as we are gradually replaced by machines, but eugenics can make society more healthy and efficient. Step one is the regulation of procreation, and step two is making abortion mandatory for cases with certain defects. Then you need to consider that there are things that can't be tested for without risk of false positives or negatives during pregnancy, so there needs to be a legal resource of euthanasia for newborns with defects, and this also must be mandatory and enforced by the government.
>>10047572
>baby is forming with 3 arms and without legs
>we better do nothing about it, maybe he has great genes!

[Anonymous No.10051818]

>>10047651
This a good example would be Ashkenazi Jews. Sky-high average IQs and more genetic diseases than any other ethnic group on earth.

[Anonymous No.10051848]

>>10051795
You don't understand. Whiteness *is* discrimination, and it's impossible to discriminate against. The assignment of Whiteness to bodies is only possible if there are other bodies which can be excluded from Whiteness. Eliminating the construct of Whiteness is the opposite of discrimination.

[Anonymous No.10051876]

>>10051807
Tell me your idea of what "the best" genes are, and I'll tell you if you're right (there is an answer, and you're probably not thinking about it).

[Anonymous No.10051882]

>>10051848
Lol what. This is retarded.
You can easily assign "whiteness" to bodies objectively, not in comparison to other bodies. but you're just trolling anyway.

[Anonymous No.10051999]

>>10051882
No, Whiteness requires an Other to oppress in order to exist.

[Anonymous No.10052003]

>>10051999
Lol no, the social construct is in implied superiority or inferiority.
The actual phenotype trait, is objective and caused by genome.

[Anonymous No.10052026]

>>10052003
>implying phenotype = Whiteness
>implying genetics = race
You have to have graduated high school to post of /sci/ retard

[Anonymous No.10052028]

>>10052026
I have a degree in mathematics.
You can stick your head in the sand but all the research and data is accumulating exponentially. You won't be able to hide from the data forever.

[Anonymous No.10052032]

>>10052026
>I have a degree in mathematics.
that's not biology.
opinion disregarded.

[Anonymous No.10052033]

>>10047426

Eugenics is outdated for this purpose. You should embrace transhumanism.

[Anonymous No.10052042]

>>10052032
Doesn't matter, if you're not smart enough that you require an argument from authority, the authority on the subject (geneticists and biologists) also agree with me.
Again, the data is already out and only accumulating. You can't deny it forever.
There is an objective difference in the genome of different populations of people that code for different traits, this is not a social construct. White skin objectively makes you better at surviving in environements with low sun exposure and low temperatures, this is not a social construct, this is why black people are prescribed vitamin D pills in northern Europe.
Black skin makes you better at surviving in environments with high sun exposure, this is not a social construct.
Evolutionary biology is empirical. I agree though that the social construct of implied superiority/inferiority is a problem though.

[Anonymous No.10052044]

>>10047426
It's only viable if it is done voluntarily by the parents (ie parents choose to abort when the fetus is known have down syndrome). If it is implemented by a government, it will inevitably be hijacked by the power hungry sociopaths who tend to populate governments and be redirected towards dystopian nonsense

[Anonymous No.10052048]

>>10052042
Again, you are proving too stupid to understand the conversation. Race and genetics are not the same thing dummy. In fact they have nothing in common. Please post your /pol/ infographic collection if it makes you feel better.

[Anonymous No.10052060]

>>10052048
I'm not a poltard, I don't post there, I use /sci/ and /lit/
>Race and genetics are not the same thing dummy. In fact they have nothing in common.
lmao they are and yes they do. Widespread phenotypical traits and genomes that code for them are studied in biology and genetics all the time in all species. wtf are you talking about.
In the end, what you're saying isn't going to stop the actual people from selecting the genes that objectively cause different phenotypical traits in their offspring, as genetic engineering and selection becomes cheaper and more common (as it's rapidly doing).

[Anonymous No.10052083]

>>10052060
>Widespread phenotypical traits and genomes that code for them are studied in biology and genetics all the time in all species
Oh wow! Because scientific 'discourse' is never used for oppressive ends so we can totally trust it. Do you want to measure my skull next?

[Anonymous No.10052088]

>>10052083
Thats not an argument.
Are you seriously denying that we have mapped the genome to the point where I can take someone's DNA, and tell you where their ancestry is from? I can tell the "race" of a person with a swab of spit.
This is not a social construct.

[Anonymous No.10052137]

>>10052088

Not him but the race classification is a social construct as it's just as easy to identify people by geographic region. In some of ways it's better to use geography because using race doesn't provide underlying diet/health strategies that different local people employ.

[Anonymous No.10052258]

>>10047426
> wants to improve humans
> by taking away basic rights and freedoms
End result: you have beautiful, strong, healthy ubermen in a dystopian nightmare. Congratulations. What a triumph.

> And the science gets done
> And we make a neat gun
> For the ones who are still alive

[Anonymous No.10052270]

>>10047426
Yep. Right now eugenics is wiping out anyone who isn't rich, though.

[Anonymous No.10052285]

>>10052270

except the 3rd world population is skyrocketing.

[Anonymous No.10052288]

>>10052137
Geographic region and race are so closely linked together that they might as well be the same thing
White=European Ancestry
Black=Sub Saharan African Ancestry

[Anonymous No.10052379]

>>10052285
>except the 3rd world population is skyrocketing.
until they reach a similar level of development as we have, then their population will level out as ours has.

[Anonymous No.10052389]

>>10052288
>Geographic region and race are so closely linked together that they might as well be the same thing
I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that we now have the ability to transport people from one end of the earth to the other in 2 days max.

[Anonymous No.10052421]

>>10052379
How would it ever reach our level?

[Anonymous No.10052427]

>>10052421
Technological and societal advancement.

[Anonymous No.10052433]

>>10052389
That has happened for like a couple of or more centuries whereas we have been separated for tens of thousands of years. Our genetic distance has more or less stayed the same.

[Anonymous No.10052457]

>>10052427
If the dont increase their IQ it wont be sustainable.

[Anonymous No.10052491]

>>10048121
This is a dumb idea. Iq is a waste if not cultivated

[Anonymous No.10052495]

>>10051796
Thank marx

[Anonymous No.10052509]

>>10052258
We are living in dystopia

[Anonymous No.10052583]

>>10052457
> If the dont increase their IQ it wont be sustainable.
And the West's reliance on fossil fuels is?

[Anonymous No.10052613]

>>10052583
Change of the subject = Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10052735]

>>10052613
Go to bed, Stephan.

IQ is not the penultimate indicator of success. In natural selection, a species' ability to adapt to changes in the environment indicates its fitness.

Btw, in selection, there is no "improvement" of a species. There is either survival or death. Evolution is not an episode of "Flip my House."

[Anonymous No.10052757]

>>10052735
you are engaging in pointless sophistry and you know it

bottom line is that it takes certain average intelligence to create and sustain a modern, developed society, and this average intelligence may not be possible in low IQ population clusters such as prevalent in third world

couple that with the threat of climate change affecting mainly equatorial areas, and it does not look good for the development of their society at all

newest UN population projections were revised up and we are looking at 12 billion humans in 2100, most of them in Africa and middle east, and their population growth while slowing down will not stop

developed world + China may yet get rid of the addiction to fossil fuels through advanced technology (renewables, nuclear)

third world is fucked, tough, and the best thing to do is to take measures so that it does not take down the rest of the planet with them

[Anonymous No.10052793]

>>10052258
You realise that rights & freedoms are human construct and genes are real?
>>10052735
> IQ is not the penultimate indicator of success
It is a large factor.
> In natural selection, a species' ability to adapt to changes in the environment indicates its fitness.
There usually aren't many changes. The one who is more fit inst the one who can adapt to changs, but the one who operate more efficiently in the current environment.
> There is either survival or death.
For an individual - yes, for a group - no. If you are a high-iq low-crime individual, your genes have a better future if your group makes sure that it is harder for low-iq high-crime individuals to pass their genes.

[Anonymous No.10052797]

>>10052793
>It is a large factor.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
WRONG

Btw, see: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/02/21/lead-race-and-crime/

[Anonymous No.10052806]

>>10047797
It'd be more ethical and efficacious to reward the people we want for having children. Tax breaks, grants, housing subsidies, etc. Instead, we currently reward the least educated and responsible for having as many children as possible, and raising them in as unstable a home environment as possible by giving food stamps and welfare to single mothers who never graduated highschool, and have 8 kids all by different fathers, none of whom are involved in the child's life.

[Anonymous No.10052808]

>>10052797
/sci/ btfo

[Anonymous No.10052817]

>>10052797
I wont even bother reading because even if iq is a bad test(if it was I would assume that it wouldn't even exist anymore because how leftist academia is), there may be a better test/the job/performance in the society itself it a test which is performed by an organism based on genes, and you can just change iq with "performance in the society" in my argument.
>>10052806
Ethics is relative.

[Anonymous No.10052827]

>>10052083
You understand that this pick is not real?

[Anonymous No.10052828]

>>10052817
>there may be a better test/the job/performance in the society itself it a test which is performed by an organism based on genes, and you can just change iq with "performance in the society" in my argument.
Funny because the title of the study that I posted is literally "Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?"
It also cover the claims about IQ's predictive power, but keep seething

[Anonymous No.10052836]

>>10052828
Assume IQ doesn't predict job performance. Then we need to focus on gene combinations which are responsible for performance in the society(not even at a particular job) and not iq.

[Anonymous No.10052840]

>>10052828

it is a well known thing that IQ does not explain the whole world, only a retard would claim otherwise, the sad thing is that we actually suck at predicting those things and IQ is one of the best parameters we can use, because it's easy to measure and explains up to the 30% of the total performance.

having said that, it's also true that not all the professions are extremely IQ loaded.

>>10052806
probably true, but everytime somebody even things about touching welfare it's hell.
I still think that a good solution might be an hybrid between children quotas and proactive incentives, since I guess it's not doable to remove state intervention at all.

[Anonymous No.10052848]

>>10052840
State-less societies are impossible, we just need good people to run the state, like China for ex.

[Anonymous No.10052852]

>>10052836
>>10052840
You're both retarded because the article I posted literally cover your arguments, it does not stop to job performance.
You would know if you weren't afraid to see studies which do not fit your narrative

[Anonymous No.10052853]

>>10052840
>IQ is one of the best parameters we can use
But anon, this argument doesn't work against the link that you respond to.

[Anonymous No.10052861]

>>10052848

state intervention in welfare programs, not stateless societies at all, I know that it's impossible.

>>10052852
Dude I agree with the study you linked, maybe I wasn't being clear enough.

>>10052853
I've said that it's one of the best, not how effective it is.
if we had a tool which explained only 5% of the performance and nothing more, it would still be the best tool we have.
That doesn't mean we should still search for better predictive instruments.

[Anonymous No.10052938]

>>10052288

They are traditionally closely linked however the differences do remain clear. Race does not accurately tell you about diet/health. African Americans exhibit different health issues that are uncommon in Sub-Saharan regions. Because of this, utilization of simple "black" or "Sub-Saharan African" racial ancestry terminology misses and conflates key characteristics that sets the populations apart.

Medical treatment for example would deem geographic differences critical as current and future personalized medicine needs to take account for the health of the base population an individual comes from when receiving treatment. Cancer occurrence varies differently between the two populations simply due to local diet. So diagnosing a Nigerian or South African black with the same percentile chance of several kinds of cancer that an African American would have is fraudulent.

>>10052433

>Our genetic distance has more or less stayed the same.

Yet how our genes are expressed vary between regions and changes constantly.

[Anonymous No.10054157]

>>10052757
> Start a thread on eugenics
> Devolves into race vs. IQ shitpost
Every time.

[Anonymous No.10054169]

>>10052840
> it is a well known thing that
> only a retard would claim otherwise
Ad popularum and ad hominem

[Anonymous No.10054510]

>>10054157
The dude who shifted to this topic got btfo though.
see >>10052797

[Anonymous No.10055131]

>>10047651

[Anonymous No.10055174]

>>10047818
Suriving=/=smart
A person with 70 IQ can live in the wilderness just fine.
>>10047837
Yeah but too many of them were dying which decreased the population way too much..which ended up being the reason their civilzation went doen hill.

[Anonymous No.10055285]

>>10054157
On 4chan? the site that got all the edgy kids of the internet in 2008 because they said "nigger" in every post?

who would have imagined such an outcome?

[Anonymous No.10055642]

Okay guys just say it with me

I
WANT
MORE
PRETTY
BLONDE
MEN

t.fembot

thats all we need in eugenics we dont want blonde girls to go extinct

[Anonymous No.10055672]

>>10047426
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

[Anonymous No.10055686]

>>10055642
You can just directly engineer the fetuses to be blonde girls.

[Anonymous No.10055692]

>>10049933
>This strong selective pressure is why whites have the highest average intelligence
Not so fast there buddy.

[Anonymous No.10055729]

>>10047426
>Memes aside, can eugenics actually work
Name a currently-existing government you would trust to decide who is and isn't allowed to have children.

[Anonymous No.10055733]

>>10055686
Improvements in cosmetic surgeries could be another option.

[Anonymous No.10055764]

>>10055733
who cares about aesthetics
the point is optimization

[Anonymous No.10055835]

>>10055764
optimization of what?

[Anonymous No.10055837]

>>10055835
The species, what else?
That doesn't mean aesthetics wont be an element but those are secondary to utility and also subjective, whereas utility is objective.

[Anonymous No.10055856]

>>10055837
Yes, but optimize what in the species?

Also, utility is objective but it is difficult to measure even in short time spans, as the total utility in long time frames can't be known with precision because what it has utility in one time frame it may or may not have the same utility in the future or even it could bring negative utility leaving us in a worse condition that in the beginning. So, in order to calculate the net utility of any genetic changes, you would need to know perfectly the future and how all the variables in the human environment affect the species in each time frame.

So, you end up trying to predict a dynamic system that is too sensitive to any changes in its variables at any point in time, therefore, the system becomes unpredictable thus any attempt to calculate total utility is futile.

[Anonymous No.10055870]

>>10055856
>Yes, but optimize what in the species?
competitiveness in the modern environment.
you're basically describing evolutionary baggage and our species is currently plagued by it. Almost everything about us is obsolete and opposite of what it should be in the modern environment.

[Anonymous No.10055881]

>>10055856
This
IQ wont mean anything in 1-5 thousand years...or at least it would matter as much as physical strength does now

[Anonymous No.10055889]

>>10055870
Ok, but the "modern environment" it is in constant change.

Also, I can't accept your assertion that everything about is obsolete when one of the main key characteristics of our species is to adapt the environment to us, in fact, that is why it is in constant change, it changes it because the species is changing it.

Because of that, we could create an environment that it is not competitive, there are lots of other options that could create "maximum utility" scenarios, like complete individualistic, complete cooperative, a mix of everything, etc.

But in any case, we won't be able to compare the results of that maximum utility because we'll lack any contrafactual of whatever we choose.

[Anonymous No.10055905]

>>10055889
There is literally no reason to not maximize intelligence. Intelligence is the one trait that is universally preferable in all environments for an organism. This is context-free, every single organism should increase intelligence if able.
Minimizing size is also clearly superior, large size is completely inefficient and negative overall in comparison to smaller more robust designs, especially for males. Combat advantage goes towards smaller peoples and resources to allocate for the population grow exponentially with linear increase in size, so you can support a much larger population for less resources while still maximizing intelligence and labor output (as size does not increase either of these things)
Eliminating all genetic diseases is clearly superior.
Heightening senses, hand eye coordination, reaction time, healing time, disease resistance, all are clearly superior regardless of environment.
I disagree completely with you, idk why you dont see it desu. A state that does these things to their people will completely dominate states that don't do anything out of a sense of morality or attempt a different route.

[Anonymous No.10055945]

>>10055905
I haven't even mentioned morality so far, albeit it is important and can't be ignored.

Although I agree that increase intelligence is desirable, we would need first a clear definition of what constitutes intelligence. If we define it as someone with high mathematical abilities, social sensitivity, and interaction, creativity and problem solving, we could be in risk in "over-loading" the capabilities of the human brain and we could have a problem with efficiency as you put in the body mass scenario.

Of course, maybe we'll able to know what those limits are and how to fit it in perfect balance with the body requirements of energy, but the problem remains if we really want to maximize all aspects of intelligence. For example, in natural disasters, people with low social sensitivity and empathy, perform better to solve problems under those scenarios of high stress. Scenarios like that could happen with another kind of abilities that could become a hindrance in certain specific situations that we can't think about it and therefore be incapable of prepare this "superhuman" to deal with them.

Thus, I say that we need to keep the maximum level of diversity, not only genetic but social and cultural, even. The existence of this diversity can and has shown in history that can promote creativity and technological advancement, without it we could lock the species in one single path of technological advancement that could prove fatal if we don't know the maximum utility achievable in an infinite time frame.

On the other hand, I can totally agree that we should eliminate genetic diseases, even if there are potential benefits (some people with autism seem more creative in some fields, for example). The diminishment of human suffering and discomfort is a worthy goal in all perspectives.

But then we are talking about genetic manipulation, not eugenics. Both are fairly close and related but they are not the same.

[Anonymous No.10055965]

>>10055945
I was talking about this in terms of genetic modification.
A population of tens of millions (perhaps hundreds) of people will still have different experiences and thought patterns even if they're all optimized to be as intelligent as possible and such. I dont think there's a reason to fear bottlenecking.
I don't fully understand what you mean by over loading the capabilities of the brain, and what problems with efficiency do you mean for the body mass?

[Anonymous No.10055972]

>>10055965
Maybe it is not important because you are talking about genetic modification. In that case, I'll probably agree about most of what you have said.

[Anonymous No.10055975]

>>10055972
oh ok.
what do you disagree with? I dont see how anything there is controversial. there's other stuff too we should do

[Anonymous No.10056006]

>>10047426
Science proved that eugenics is fake and race is fake also. If you for example kill all stupids then the kids the smarties have in the next generation will have the same proportion of equal stupids. In short the same net outcome. There is a force in the universe that makes sure of it.

[Anonymous No.10056017]

>>10055905
>There is literally no reason to not maximize intelligence.
It increases unhappiness.
There is a negative correlation between happiness and IQ.
There is no inherent meaning to life, so pleasure maximizing is the only objective "good".

Hunter Gatherers 10k years go have a more fulfilling and happy life than modern people do now. At least, where are all the cavemen suicides?

[Anonymous No.10056023]

>>10056017
Additionaly, having 500 IQ ubermensch is pointless if they all commit suicide in adolescence because they come to the conclusion that life is meaningless, pleasure is fleeting, pain is dominant, and the lack of pain is a better alternative to intermittent pleasure in between swathes of boredom and suffering.

t. someone who the only reason they haven't killed themselves yet is the instincts stopping them from doing so and the irrational fear of nonexistence.

[Anonymous No.10056081]

>>10055905
>There is literally no reason to not maximize intelligence.
Given every metric for intelligence is plagued with fine-print and corner-cases, that sounds like EXACTLY the kind of thing we shouldn't be optimising.
The most dangerous thing in the world is someone solving a problem they don't understand.

[Anonymous No.10056171]

>>10055856
>utility is objective
There is no objective utility, as the fact-value gap remains unbridgeable. Why should I trust your meta-narrative over my own?

[Anonymous No.10056173]

>>10056023
>create 500 iq ubermensch
>they all believe in God
Checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.10056178]

>>10056171
It's always impressive how reliably eugenics proponents turn out to be idiots jerking themselves off over how much smarter than everyone else they think they are.

[Anonymous No.10056196]

>>10056023
>t. someone who the only reason they haven't killed themselves yet is the instincts stopping them from doing so and the irrational fear of nonexistence.
Between the ages of 14 and 21

[Anonymous No.10056201]

>>10047818
Just import africans, bro. They've been living like that since birth.

[Anonymous No.10056203]

>>10051999

[Anonymous No.10056209]

>>10047426
I've always wanted to breed a 600+ iq entity and then entrust it in all our future decision making. It just seems like the next step in our evolution

[Anonymous No.10056217]

>>10056209
What’s to stop it from enslaving us all?

[Anonymous No.10056223]

>>10056217
Then? Life isn't worth living in the first place. Climate change has us fucked. It's one or two of these "God's" leading us.

As long as they don't believe life is pointless and we stop their development of such ideas there then we have the chance of creating a biological god. If it chooses to enslave us, oh well.

[Anonymous No.10056226]

>>10056217
That's the whole point. They want to be enslaved by the AI, because they have no faith in humanity. Also, they have this weird view that there is some objective truth out there and if we can only discover what it is, and feed enough data into the system, and just do a little bit more science, all our problems will be solved and the lion will lay down with the lamb and we can beat our swords onto ploughshares etc

[Anonymous No.10056227]

>>10056203
>le epic infographic from /pol/

[Anonymous No.10056229]

>>10056226
Truth is objectively what we make for ourselves is it not? The truth and life we are going towards and the end result would not be as good as if we had a biological entity to lead our way when 99% of the civilization could not match it's strengths.

[Anonymous No.10056236]

>>10056227

[Anonymous No.10056246]

>>10047426
It will inevitably be taken over by dumbass government admins and they'll fuck everything up. Which would you rather have? Natural selection, a form of genetic improvement that stands the test of time, and has for over a billion years? Or some edgy shit that was originally based on a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory of evolution? Take that and misapply it to the predictable degree that your average politician will, and you've got serious problems.

[Anonymous No.10056249]

>>10047818
Yes, many batches would have 100% death rates.

[Anonymous No.10056254]

>>10048095
Won't work because some environments are way harsher than others, thus the selection will only take the best people from their environment, not the actual best people. (Thus still a lot of diversity, differences,... )

[Anonymous No.10056280]

>>10055881
Why won't it?
Intelligence has stood the test of times. It is highly sought after in all environments for all organisms.

[Anonymous No.10056281]

>>10056229
>not be as good
Can't see your workings here. It sounds like you are just worshipping power. Yes the first group to build the super computer will have an advantage, like US when only they had the atom bomb. Let's hope whoever gets the God PC are people I agree with rather than fascists or islamists or (in an epic twist worthy of Shamalam himself) some Unabomber style anarchists who want us to return to nature.

[Anonymous No.10056427]

>>10056196
Adult suicide rates skyrocket when they are permanently single and/or childless.
Wow, it's almost like when you succumb to instincts (pairing off into a relationship, having children) you are less likely to disregard your instincts in the most extreme manner
objectively speaking less intelligent people are less likely to suicide. Where are all the negro and mexican suicides? Why are Asian suicide rates higher than white suicides higher than brown suicides higher than african suicides.
No correlation with intelligence there.

[Anonymous No.10056461]

>>10056427
>This grim insight into the psyche of the depressed /pol/ack
Yes anon, it's not because you're a racist weirdo who makes no effort at human connection. It's not that you are a self absorbed adolescent. You are just too damn intelligent.

[Anonymous No.10056469]

>>10055972
>>10055975
why haven't you told me what you disagree with?
>>10056171
>muh is-ought gap
>>10056178
While you pretend like youre morally superior, the states that do what I outlined will overrun yours and dominate.
That is not subjective

[Anonymous No.10056470]

>>10056461
>having human connection makes you less likely to kill yourself
>being psychologically "fulfilled" means you're less likely to suicide
>more intelligent people tend to have higher standards to be psychologically satisfied

You haven't provided any counterarguments at all. Just NUH UH. Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.10056603]

>>10056469
>the states that do what I outlined will overrun yours and dominate.
>That is not subjective
So just straightforward power worship, might makes right stuff. It's an ethos I guess.
>>10056470
If they were smart they wouldnt have such high standards. Expecting the world to meet you perfectly on your terms is not very intelligent

[Anonymous No.10056663]

>>10052848
>CHINKS
>good people
They´re soulless bootlickers, anon.

[Anonymous No.10056668]

>>10056081
>The most dangerous thing in the world is someone solving a problem they don't understand.
Scientists understand perfectly well that intelligence tests measure capacity for abstraction; what you and the rest of the leftist ideologues in denial think about the subject is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10056675]

>>10047426
Even liberal scientists with an iota of integrity admit it would work as we see in our artificial selection of animals, we could make humans smarter, stronger, fitter, more athletic, we could enhance their sense organs and so forth. The toolkit to create a better class of humanity is right there the only thing stopping us is the post -war consensus. Meanwhile the Chinese will do this uninhibited and then I defy you to deny the power of eugenics when Chinese diverge biologically and go to greater heights of human accomplishment.

[Anonymous No.10056680]

>>10056675
A thousand failures and one success is really a success at all. You realize you have to cull all the fucked up offspring when you do artificial selection, don't you?

[Anonymous No.10056802]

>>10055174
>Suriving=/=smart
>A person with 70 IQ can live in the wilderness just fine.
It'll at the very least thin out the tail end of the bell curve.

[Anonymous No.10056943]

>>10056281
So, to which group do the anonymous "investors" and their kippah wearing human shields belong?

[Anonymous No.10056957]

>>10056943
>oy vey! These super human intelligences have decided we are the chosen race after all. To maximise utility, it turns out you must serve our needs without question. Thems the breaks goyim, surely you can't argue against the facts?

[Anonymous No.10056972]

>>10056957
People revolt, do another genocide, make world a bit better for a few decades, while the real perpetrators hide in the shadows. The question is, does the tribe even realize they're being useful idiots in public executive roles?

In any case, it won't be that obvious. Workforce automatization will be achieved, UBI payed to the freeloaders while robots accrue valuable combat experience in peace keeping missions. What happens next is anybody's guess ; ).

[Anonymous No.10056975]

>>10056680
>You realize you have to cull all the fucked up offspring when you do artificial selection, don't you?

No, you only need them to not procreate.

[Anonymous No.10056988]

>>10056972
Surely the superhuman brains would also be superhuman at propaganda and crowd control, leading to a passive and docile population unable to even formulate the terms of their own oppression, or conceptualise how they are being controlled. But what am I talking about, that's crazy science fiction stuff...

[Anonymous No.10056996]

>>10047426
No
Intelligent people know reproduction is unethical, therefore eugenics cannot possibly create intelligent people

[Anonymous No.10057015]

>>10056988
Call this the Midwich Cuckoo's scenario. The first thing the cuckoos will do after enslaving their original handlers will make sure it's impossible to find them while they control things from the shadows. They will always be better at hiding than we will be at exposing them. For all we know the CIA created them already in the 50s, we'd never be able to find out. I've always supported our superhuman controllers anyway and I think they're great people, if I believed in them that is which I certainly don't

[Anonymous No.10057713]

test

[Anonymous No.10057715]

>>10056996
kek