Eugenics

Gene manipulation will make eugenics useless.

>but muh diversity

The problem is, certain gene manipulation will only be accessible to the very rich. Thus creating a way for eugenics.

Pugs have a fuck ton of problems nowadays. compare the Pugs of back then to the Pugs of now

>The problem is, certain gene manipulation will only be accessible to the very rich.

Only at first. Like basically everything else. And I'd rather live in a world with more geniuses anyway, even if I can't be one of them.

Eugenics is already happening, it's called White Genocide.

>eugenics is to blame and not irresponsible puppy mills going full blown retard

The world has more poor people multiplying than rich people, therefore by order of magnitude, the world won't be full of genius but rather full of poor and retards.

Do you really believe that?

Haven't poor people been multiplying more than rich people for thousands of years? Yet we still have even more intelligent and wealthy people now than in any other time.

Good, let them have all the horrible mutant babies before the technology is perfected.

Gene manipulation IS eugenics you dunce.

>Eugenics is basically impossible to apply at a national level
This isn't quiet what you're getting at, but it's related to the fact that some sperg will inevitably come in crying that "e-eugenics is impossible, society is too big!"

The Jewish Diaspora and the Israelis have Dor Yeshorim, which works to eliminate Tay-Sachs (A disease that basically causes your brain to rot, starting in your optic nerve). Ashkenazi Jews have a high prevalence of the disease. So, what does Dor Yeshorim do? Educates the Jewish community on the disease, how genetic inheritance works, and provides screening for recessive genes. A couple can have blood samples taken, and the doctors will give them either a response of "You can have children" or "Do not have children"

They don't say who has the recessive gene because there's a huge stigma amongst Jews about having the recessive gene, even though you aren't affected.

Dor Yeshorim does a number of other tests.

All that would need to be done is to take this system and apply it to a large scale. Rather than just a handful of Oy vey diseases, we make it many things. Predisposition to autism, to down's syndrome, etc etc etc.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that genetic engineering opens up vastly more opportunities for eugenics. The state could offer procedures to couples wherein they would take a woman's eggs and a man's sperm, perform the genetic engineering, and then do in vitro fertilisation (or other fertilization methods). Sure, it's completely free to the couple because it's at tax payer expense, but then I would gladly have my taxes go to making people more intelligent, or lower the chance of autism, or get rid of down's syndrome, etc.

Would this information be public? Where do you draw the line for what is acceptable to have and what is not?

What would happen if countries would make these practices mandatory?

I think the idea of eugenics will become less and less relevant with CRISPR, etc.

That being said it is a flawed idea.

Would implementing a nationalized standard nutrition regiment have greater efficacy than eugenics?

No we dont and neither of us have any actual stats to back our statements up.

On average intelligent people will have 1/2 kids. Less intelligent people generally have at least 2.

I don't think the same or even similar diets can benefit every person equally. Where would you even start with such an idea?

How are you defining "average" and "less" intelligent? On what scale?

Just for reference, > is what many people in the world believe. It fills me with a sense of dread.

My mistakes, I meant .

I see what you're saying, but even simply having a nice checklist and a doctor who will tell you whether or not it's advised you reproduce isn't going to go over well in a country like the United States where privacy rights are (generally) held in such high regard that even telling someone they need to lose weight is considered inappropriate.

>public
As in, what counts towards the "we recommend you don't breed" list? Obviously. Records of WHO shouldn't breed? No.

>Where do you draw the line for what is acceptable to have and what is not?
Diseases that are both crippling and avoidable.

>What would happen if countries would make these practices mandatory?
I don't think it should be mandatory.

I'm arguing that it's possible, not that it would go over well.

If people with autism were bred out then this board would not exist

Eugenics as in breeding people according to perceived traits is stupid.

You have to do it in an informed way, where it's basically genetic engineering.

In theory if you started doing Eugenics blindly, without actually understanding how intelligence works, you would get results - 1 SD, maybe 2, maybe 3 in the case of blacks.

But depending on the inheritance you may end up killing all humans if you started culling everybody under 160 IQ for example.

I always want to imagine eugenics conferences are like one or two guys going "How can we introduce social programs to reduce the incidence of genetic disorders?" and everyone else is like "What if we just sterilized Africa?"

Ugly manlets are more then capable of attracting mates just mostly low quality ones. If you are charasmatic, goal oriented, and short+ugly it is not hard to attract a woman. You may not geg a 10/10 but it is in general for ugly dudes to land hot chicks then vice versa. Men are a lot more attracted to physical beauty and women are more into power, charisma, domineering personalities, etc. If you can't get a woman it's probably because you have no social skills, charm, etc.

t. A person who lives in the real world.

Retards don't realize that autism bipolar disorder schizophrenic OCD etc etc are all highly polygenic illnesses and certain alleles that predispose you to developing them in the womb also benefit language, speech development, IQ, and cognitive flexibility.

Breeding out mental illnesses means forming man into a hive of stupid fucking normies.

Being ugly has nothing to do with your intelligence genetics. Strictly speaking, those are discrete and their own thing.

Height and whether or not you're near sighted have more of an impact on IQ and even then it's not that strong of a correlation.

Eugenics IS genetic engineering, just applied to humans.

Right, which is why eugenics is only to be used to get rid of crippling diseases.

It's like you guys are intentionally taking things to the illogical extreme just so you can bitch about it.

> capable of attracting mates

Nope. Women's selector algorithm makes them naturally strive for tall strong men. Sure they can ignore this and pay attention to other social params (like the size of your wallet). But initiating a relationship like this is not a good idea, as there will be no natural bonds and the woman will leave you for the first more attractive male they encounter.

>illogical extreme

>addressing a point made in this thread

Pick one and only one bitch.

>we make it many things. Predisposition to autism, to down's syndrome, etc etc etc.

We can solve the monogenic illnesses easily enough after the clinical trials have well and passed. Anything else - including and especially brain diseases like MS, Alzheimer's, and mental illnesses are going to be a fucking mess. I fear for how far you retards will try and go in the name of 'progress'.

there is literally nothing wrong with encouraging superior specimens to breed in a voluntary fashion, you can do this fine without infringing on the right of schizophrenics to impregnate autists, merely suggesting the idea that smart people should have more kids labels you as a fascist in polite company

Just wait until we reach the point where genetic manipulation becomes feasible along with a solid understanding of our genes and encourage its use once it's there.
Anything prior to that with government mandated eugenics is too cruel to individuals and has the potential to be exploited.

There you go again. You're taking something to an illogical extreme that has been demonstrated in real life to NOT be the case.

Dor Yeshorim has done a fantastic job at removing a horrible painful death sentence that anyone cursed with has literally ZERO chance of preventing, slowing, or curing from the Jewish people's genepool and here you are wringing your hands and anguishing about OH WE CAN'T DO THAT THAT'S OUT OF OUR GRASP OH THE HUMANITY

Grow the fuck up.

Which ones? Because I see that point brought up and no one really elaborates on it.

How do you define who's truly superior and who isn't?

it occurs informally such as by marrying up.

Proper eugenics would be unpalatable to most democratic societies.

A better alternative would be to stop enabling socially destructive practices by cutting child benefits, especially for single parent households. Instead of handing out gibs, grant tax cuts to married couples that do have children.

In the long run, it would have the same effect as Eugenics without any of the authoritarian bullshit.

Implying they're not one in the same

>you can do this fine without infringing on the right of schizophrenics to impregnate autists
Why exactly should they have this "right"? To consciously make society worse?

That's a little selfish of you, isn't it?

>cutting child benefits
All that does is make people desperate. Desperate people do desperate things like riot, steal, and start revolutions
>Instead of handing out gibs, grant tax cuts to married couples that do have children.
Which wouldn't even put a dent in the problem but just be one more way for rich people to weasel out of paying their fair share.

>do you really believe that?
Where do you think you are?

>Why exactly should they have this "right"? To consciously make society worse?
More like what gives you the right to take away something that most of the world considers a basic human right and will fight you for if you come barging into their living room to tell them who they are and aren't allowed to marry.

And they don't make society "worse". Humans treating other humans like a disposable resource are what make society worse. It's simple minded idiots following orders to barge into other people's living rooms to tell them at the point of a gun or a sword how they should be living their lives, those are the people doing a heck of a lot more damage than some autist who wasn't hurting anybody and with the right training and education is perfectly capable of becoming a productive member of society, and at least deserves a shot at becoming one.

Caring for our sick and injured and less capable are what separates humans from beasts.

Bring back arranged marriages!

>kissless perma-virgins dreaming of a system where daddy buys you a wife before either of you are old enough to consent, and by the time she realizes how repulsive and disgusting you are it's impossible for her to leave.
Maybe if you took a shower and put away your star wars toys and started lifting more, you wouldn't be begging God to bring back regressive, antiquated social systems

Get out normalfag, shouldn't you be a protest against drumpf right about now competing with 15 other Chads for a taste of Stacy's rotten snatch

There is literally nothing wrong with arranged marriages. One man one wife is progressive bringing back harems into society is repressive and antiquated

arranged marriages are retarded and I'm guaranteed worse off than you are

>Get out normalfag, shouldn't you be a protest against drumpf right about now competing with 15 other Chads for a taste of Stacy's rotten snatch
mmm, the sweet scent of jealous butthurt. "I bet her snatch was rotten, anyway!" said the dejected, lonely, virgin.

Tell us more about your qt3.14 fantasies. How old is she, thirteen? fourteen? Just old enough to have boobs and for you to start grooming but not old enough to fight back, right? Do you imagine her as being pure and totally innocent and just ripe for the despoiling and all upset because she has to marry a filthy toad like you and there's nothing she can do about it?

>There is literally nothing wrong with arranged marriages.
Except if your wife turned out to be a hateful, conniving hag and you really wish that you could kick her ass to the curb but you can't because muh degeneracy and hurr too much freedom is bad.

>One man one wife is progressive bringing back harems into society is repressive and antiquated
Dear fucking Jesus, dude, why don't you take a break from the porn box for a few months, it's completely warping your view of reality.
>hurr people are getting divorced to go join chad and tyrone's harem
No, they're getting divorced because they came to hate their spouse (usually for completely legitimate reasons) and wanted to find one that treats them better. Freedom means if you don't deserve it she'll leave your ass and vice versa.

you are basically a proud cuck, too brainwashed to consider that one man one wife is inherently equitable and progressive, enjoy "marrying" a woman who sucked 50 cocks before she turned 18 only to divorce her 5 years later after she takes your money

cuck

>cuck
ahh yes, the /pol/tard's refuge when faced with an argument that they can't refute with facts.

Thanks for playing, though. Maybe one day if you drop that nasty attitude and lift more women won't be so repulsed by you and you won't have to go about your day obsessing over what other people are doing in their bedrooms.

>ima lift to fuck used goods and then get into a sham marriage for five years then she'll divorce

cuck

blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/08/20/the-fucking-pedantic-asshole-chronicles/

>It’s time to stop suffering these ‘intellectual’ arguments with our dudely ‘friends’. They are unwinnable. This is not because the feminist position is flawed. In fact, the premise from which radical feminism proceeds, that women are human, is unassailable by any but the most fanatical, deluded, small-minded swine. No, these dude-arguments are unwinnable because it’s not a fair fight. The fucking pedantic assholes hold the advantage in every respect. Not the least of which is that they get to argue for the dominant paradigm from a cushy, privileged spot within the dominant paradigm, whereas the feminist must simultaneously argue for a wholly imaginary model (a surreal bizarro-world where she is fully human), from that wholly imaginary model, all the while resisting the overwhelming pull exerted by the old familiar patriarchal exemplar — making smiling, head-tilting concessions.

>But the fucking pedantic asshole’s primary advantage is that he is motivated not by intellectual curiosity, but by the vulgar patriarchal domination imperative. He’s not really about discourse at all. He fakes you out by getting you to intone your feminist manifesto, but he’s really just baiting you for the old put-a-sock-in-it-or-the-consequences-will-be-dire gambit. The fucking pedantic asshole has made the exciting discovery that he can dominate the women in his midst merely by threatening to revoke that most golden and priceless of gifts: his favor. In generously condescending to converse with a member of the sex caste, these putzes pretend to want to engage in serious philosoph-socio-political debate, but their only real interest lies in forcing the uppity feminist to submit to their awesome power.

But the fertility rates of people with less than average IQ is much higher than the fertitily rate of people with above average IQ (see dysgenics).

In my country, the Netherlands, you already get government assitance with IQ below 75 I believe, and these people are (with due exceptions) a drain on society: they require special schools, a lot of extra attention from government and social workers, etc. etc.

Let me put it this way: if those people get children without restriction then mathematically you have an unstable system (given IQ is mostly hereditairy), as they tend to get more children than average, so will exponentially take over society, so you have an exponentially growing drain. Then one must thus make the choice: either restrict the welfare state for those people or restrict their ability to have children.

Iodized salt increased IQ values by 10-15 points across the board.

Yeah but social class collerating strongly with intelligence is a new thing. Also, there used to be massive exterminations of population with wars and famines, and there were still evolutionairy mechanisms in place.

...

>cuck
I see that we've hit the limits of your imagination, and I totally understand that at this point it's more like a defensive reflex than anything

If you don't want to take my advice, that's fine. I'm sure that your current strategy of envisioning women like objects which exist solely for your gratification will one day net you the real life qt3.14 of your favorite wank even though you refuse to lift a finger in pursuit of the honor of putting your fatboy seed in her trim, genetically superior bosom.

But also consider the possibility that one day when you're old and bitter and still kissless you'll break down and finally order that prostitute because you just can't bear the shame that in a world where people are given the freedom to chose, nobody actually wanted anything to do with you and you're still way too dense to figure out why so you take the coward's way out.

i know I will I never get a woman but at least I am aware the system in place is not in my best interests

Unless you're a chad it's not in your self interests either but you refuse to acknowledge it

therefore you a numale cuck useful idiot for Stacy's cock carousel

Bye!

>I'm sure that your current strategy of envisioning women like objects which exist solely for your gratification will one day net you the real life qt3.14

It's really ironic that men with that kind of mindset usually have the most sexual partners.

until next time, permavirgin. Don't let the door hit you on the way out

>It's really ironic that men with that kind of mindset usually have the most sexual partners.
Yes, it's entirely possible for guys with the right stuff to fake game long enough to get laid. And if they do have the right stuff and that complete lack of scruples they don't have time to go on history boards and bitch about how much women are whores for sleeping with everyone but them. Those are the kind of guys who end up with 4 baby-mamas and a court order to give them 3/4s of his paycheck for the better part of his adult life.

But kissless fat-bodies might want to reevaluate their strategy if it's never once worked for them.

I have a similar question, so I might as well ask here. What would happen if there was some type of breakthrough in CRISPR and designer babies started being a thing? Would governments toss ethics aside in a race to surpass each other?

China is already doing it.

>I have a really hard time articulating myself okay!!!!!

One would think that a cautious, prudent strategy would be the best. Running blindly into a genetic arms race could have unforeseen consequences for the health of the genetic line. It could promote severe genetic defects like what are seen in overbred purebred dogs and lead to shortened lifespans and severely depreciated quality of life.

But here's an interesting question: what if two dwarves want to have another dwarf and be a family of little people? If it doesn't hurt any body, and the dwarves lead otherwise perfectly normal, productive lives, who's to say that they should not be allowed? Does anyone actually get to pick the circumstances of their birth or are they better of left to random chance?

I'm sure it will turn out as well for them as the one child policy did

Let's give them some credit. I don't think they'd raise a generation with experimental medical procedures and hope for the best.

I wouldn't be surprised if they've got test babies right now.

>I'm sure it will turn out as well for them as the one child policy did
Oh, the policy that prevented their numbers from swelling to 3 billion once they figured out how to stop starving, only to end up starving again? Seemed to have worked splendidly.

Nigeria wouldn't benefit from a one child policy. No not at all. #yolo

I still don't understand the obsession with IQ as an indicator of genetic desirability as a breeding population. What about the Flynn effect? What about the fact that "heritability" could also be from learning, family, and other environmental sources, rather than simply genetic?

Debating the intrinsic value of a person is far easier than accounting for their immediate surroundings, support networks, and society.

>3 billion
Where in God's name did you get that number?

All it did was remove huge numbers of babies from their parents and force them to grow up in crowded, unsanitary orphanages while the powerful and well connected were able to skirt around it entirely. In practice it was nearly impossible to enforce uniformly. Economic development has done more to drive down Chinese birthrates than any hamfisted political legislation whose unforeseen consequence is the demographic crisis created by having 2 million more men than women, most of whom will probably never have a real shot at starting a family and will be ripe for radicalization.

>Do you really believe that?
yes.
I unironically do.
t. southerner who doesn't know he has nigger blood.

One child policy was only adopted in more urbanized areas and only really ever affected 1/3rd of the population. Even official Chinese government statements don't go further than trying to claim the prevention of ~400 million additional births - and even those numbers are controversial with many scholars arguing the same results would have been accomplished by economic development.

...

>muh philosophical arguments
>muh democracy

That's nice and all, but irrelevant.

No one, absolutely NO ONE is going to listen to people with disabilities or disability advocate groups who fight against genetic engineering. Nor will they listen to the weirdo religious zealots who take the same position.

Why? Because it's the economy, stupid.

Let's say that CRISPR isn't all that it's cracked up to be, fine, whatever.

Did you also know that China has stockpiled (and is continuing to stockpile) the sperm and ovum of genius level people? The specific purpose of this is to begin a eugenics program in order to make the bell curve's crest be a significantly higher IQ than it is compared to the general populace.

So either through successive breeding (with likely the aid of medical science), or pure medical science China is going to start churning out smarter and smarter babies. This will force competing nations to adopt the same strategies. This economic warfare will put pressure on the governments of the world lest they fall too far behind.

And believe it or not, Fundies will swallow their pride so long it means that MURICA stays numbero uno in their eyes. No matter what the fuck that really means.

I personally have no dog in this fight though. I think that people with various kinds of disabilities are perfectly capable of excelling, aside from extreme mental incapacitation. Plenty of abnormally smart, and/or successful are on the spectrum. Well adjusted geniuses like Feynman are pretty fucking rare.

At the same time though, I feel it is morally abhorrent to continue down the insane path we're on now. Where people are literally capable of being tested for all sorts of debilitating illnesses but no way to prevent them because, whoops, you were born the natural way.

>a taste of Stacy's rotten snatch
no grapes like those sour ones bud.

hey, Iodine is an important micronutrient.

>let's narrow the gene pool out of our own accords.
>clearly nothing can go wrong.

>Nigeria wouldn't benefit from a one child policy.

Actually, providing birth control drugs, and education on family planning - especially through educating women - has had a great effect in a number of African programs. The irony is that this sort of foreign aid isn't very popular among the American public.

The high fertility rate of women in many less developed countries is also sometimes attributed to their lower social status, which prevents them from making family planning decisions in favour of having fewer children (which would be less physically strenuous for them).

Allowing women to work also has a considerable effect on fertility rates since women can no longer devote as much time to child-rearing as well, which makes larger families difficult.

This is factually incorrect.

Arranged marriages have a short-term higher quotient of unhappiness, but a greater long-term one. Google it, I am not your servant.

My grandparents were part of an arranged marriage (and they aren't brown or Asian), and they've been together for 56 years.

>india has relatively similar populations without forcible legislations and their TFR is already reaching sustainable levels.

Hell Indian cities already have EU levels of fertility rates which has more to do with the cost of raising children and no economic incentive to actually raise a ton of children.

Assuming genetic engineering gives you the complete capacity to alter genetics (remember all genes are is a combo of A, C, G, and U) then you just collect a record of people who weren't altered in a bank. And bam, the problem is solved. I've actually talked about this at length with a geneticist friend of mine, he is skeptical of the possibilities of CRISPR as it is now because of precisely how it works and the success/failure rate. Yet when I posed this question to him, he said that so long as you have compiled the complete genetic makeup of someone(s) then you just alter the code later on should any unforeseen problems arise with the generations that were genetically altered. Reversion is just as simple in this case.

sure. And yet we don't exactly know how the problems will be created or if they will be curable down the line.

Eugenics is edgy simply because it allows busybodies to force people to decide what to do with their genetic material

What are you missing about the context of this?

If you can completely rewrite DNA, then you also have the capability to put it back the way it was. That is the very definition of being able to completely rewrite DNA.

If it turns out that by turning an A into a U causes catastrophic retardation, then you just turn the U back into an A with another egg. Whose egg is irrelevant because again, you can completely rewrite the DNA involved.

>if you can
that's the big IF.

Which is exactly why I asked the question in that manner. CRISPR seems cool and all, and it definitely has a lot of potential, but it still very new. This doesn't mean that the science is dangerous, it just means it hasn't had the time to be refined. With newer versions of the process, and newer developments in the realm of genetic engineering than making these changes will become elementary. As it stands now we can already do this shit, it's just repeating the results precisely as they are is very difficult, and is one of the bigger reasons as to why ovum experimentation is banned in the US.

It isn't because of moral reasons, it is because no one in government wants to be the one being blamed when some scientist's think tank produces a weird baby with three heads and four legs, and the mom and dad create a media circus.

Since those laws were put in place when genetic screening was literally unheard of, they are a tad out of fashion and should be relaxed. That isn't to say the work is done, my whole post has been about why it isn't close to being to done. I am merely putting forth the point that genetic engineering isn't some boogeyman. You can fix the changes, screening sperm and eggs for higher viability (which is already done) or terminate the pregnancy (which is already done). That's what the medical field is striving for: efficacy.

>It isn't because of moral reasons, it is because no one in government wants to be the one being blamed when some scientist's think tank produces a weird baby with three heads and four legs, and the mom and dad create a media circus.
christcucks and redditor normalfags who can't cope with the idea of genetic determinism are going to ruin everything aren't they

They can try, but it won't work.

Corporate interests are naturally ingrained in America, these same interests have a huge reliance on a minority of incredibly smart individuals. This is why H-1B (when it isn't being abused to pay Pajeet from India $3.00 an hour) is specifically aimed at intelligent people from around the world. Get them to come over to America, get them hooked on America, and make sure they never leave. This is actually creating a problem in Africa, this program is sucking up the odd miracle that pops up every now and again in the Sahara -- then those kids never go back because, "lol fuck that place." And for good reason. A lot of advocates are trying to strengthen homegrown education in poorer countries, and when they can't, they are trying to get kids educated but make sure they can't get work visas to get outta wherever they're from. This way they are forced to stay in their countries and attempt to contribute to the economy. It is for this reason that I toss a lot of shade on the whole, "Africa is going to be full of 1st World Nations soon" shit that I see Bill Gates and his ilk sermonize about.

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic. What I am trying to say is that once China (or Russia, or India, or S. Korea) starts doing this to more than just a few test-tube babies, it's going to start an economic arms race. This will force a full reversal on the subject in America, because America will never stand for the idea of someone else taking hold of the mantle of responsibility.

....

Not the same guy you were arguing against, but the issue with this whole thing future scenario you've outlined is the assumption that IQ's heritability has a very strong genetic component. I don't necessarily see this sort of thing as completely inevitable on the "economic warfare" angle.

It's quite possible that any genetic component of IQ might be in turn nullified or ameliorated by environmental or contextual factors.

I do agree that we'll likely see the spread of genetic engineering techniques going forward, and likely a shift in attitudes about reproduction or attempts to prevent heritable illnesses, but the idea of mass-scale government-administrated eugenics program needs a lot of things to happen first.

Thank you user.
I'crying for how tight you are

You do realize that the positive/negative associations in that picture were likely formed by perceived traits, right?

If you engineer towards intelligence as determined by IQ tests, you'd merely end up with a society of people selected for doing well in IQ tests.

>will never stand for the idea of someone else taking hold of the mantle of responsibility.