Eugenics

Yes, and being displaced from white countries increase the number of whites "isolated" in places with no mates available: think about Engrish teachers in Japanese small towns. As the world pop go up to 9 billions, whites will go down to 250M and the risk of isolation will increase: total fertility rate will go down progressively to 0.8 by 2100 considering girls marrying a white men and having all white grandparents.

White females, everywhere in the world, reproduce almost exclusively with white males

In less than 5 years there will be no such thing as "white countries" anymore. White people will be a minority in every country in the world. And this is great, insha'Allah.

plain and simply this
nobody in the academic world thinks these ideas are good, just internet cultured tools and nazi science fans

As white communities are shrinking and isolating, another problem will arise: inbreeding; so the Total Fertility Rate will continue to go down. I've done a better count with a spreadsheet, assuming that there are currently 400M white females that started breeding not so much ago or that will be capable of it in the next 32 years:

Year | TFR | White women

2016 | 1.20 | 400000000
2044 | 1.17 | 240000000
2076 | 1.14 | 140400000
2108 | 1.11 | 80028000
2140 | 1.08 | 44415540
2172 | 1.05 | 23984392
2204 | 1.02 | 12591806
2236 | 0.99 | 6421821
2268 | 0.96 | 3178801
2300 | 0.93 | 1525825
2332 | 0.90 | 709508
2364 | 0.87 | 319279
2396 | 0.84 | 138886
2428 | 0.81 | 58332
2460 | 0.78 | 23625
2492 | 0.75 | 9214
2524 | 0.72 | 3455
2556 | 0.69 | 1244
2588 | 0.66 | 429
2620 | 0.63 | 142
2652 | 0.60 | 45
2684 | 0.57 | 13
2716 | 0.54 | 4
2748 | 0.51 | 1
2780 | 0.48 | 0

so: under 1 million procreating white females in 3 centuries from now, and under 100K in 4 centuries.

1.) Because of self/group-serving ego biases and fallacies
2.) Because nature encourages diversity
3.) Because nature says freaks aren't always weak
4.) Because nature homogeneity is destructive
5.) Because logic dictates egotism and authoritarianism is flawed
6.) Only the weak fear diversity

Because of bumbling idiots who don't realize deleterious alleles make up diversity too. They cling onto the diversity buzzword since they've been spoonfed that propaganda their entire lives and unable to think outside that box. Yes some diversity is necessary for the species, namely diversity of functional immunological alleles. But we don't need a diversity of mental ability, we definitely want to select for the most capable.

There will never be a scenario where Huntington's disease or mental retardation is desirable.

False dilemma.
Most diversity is not disease related.
Closing breeding doors eventually leads to sterilization and lack of mutative progress.

Also, you're "weaknesses can never be cleverly used as strengths" is fallacious.
The argument from ignorance, personal incredulity, etc... are fallacies.

>False dilemma.
Hardly.

>Most diversity is not disease related.
Plenty is.

>Closing breeding doors eventually leads to sterilization and lack of mutative progress.
Slippery slope fallacy.

>Also, you're "weaknesses can never be cleverly used as strengths" is fallacious.
For all practical purposes it can't. Not to mention it's easier to use a strength as a strength.

> personal incredulity
Fuck off. Show me a scenario now where Huntington's is better than not having Huntington's.

>personal incredulity
Just on this note, that is what you assholes have been saying throughout this thread about how we don't and probably won't understand genetics well enough.

>Hardly
Not a counter argument

>Plenty
Not a counter argument

>Slippery slope fallacy
Determinism isn't a fallacy.
You're applying that wrong.
Scientific laws of genetic segregation are absolute.

>For all practical purposes it can't. Not to mention it's easier to use a strength as a strength.
Again, that's a fallacy.
See the "irreducible complexity" fallacy.
If you actually were into genetics, you would be aware of that fallacy.

>Fuck off. Show me a scenario now where Huntington's is better than not having Huntington's.
Do you even know what the "argument from ignorance is"?
Just because no one knows doesn't mean you can default to claiming knowledge due to lack of oppositional evidence to your statement.
>I've personally never seen x, and no has anyone I've met.
>Therefore x doesn't exist.
That's fallacious.

>Just on this note, that is what you assholes have been saying throughout this thread about how we don't and probably won't understand genetics well enough.
Because you don't.
Fallacies mixed are still fallacies.
Irreducible complexity fallacy
Personal incredulity
Argument from ignorance

Your thought process is automatically wrong.
You're not mature enough to understand how science works.
Presumptions are not science.

OP we do not know how genetics work.
Just because we have models doesn't mean we understand everything about them.

In diversity, strength.
Though having lots of sets of genes helps i.e. don't become an endangered species.

>Not a counter argument
You say this like you provided an argument in the first place. All you did was make a claim and so it was dismissed.

>Determinism isn't a fallacy.
Not a counter argument.

>irreducible complexity
Just pulling shit out of your ass now? Cool.

>"argument from ignorance is"?
Nice trap, first you fallacy drop "personal incredulity" as though you know what you're talking about. Then when I ask for proof of your credulity you throw this at me.

>You're not mature enough to understand how science works
LOL and you are? Hahahaha.

Presumptions are not science.
Like your presumption that "closing breeding doors eventually leads to sterilization and lack of mutative progress."

I think you'll find that the "Engrish teachers" do not stay in isolated Japanese towns until death. They leave, go home or to other countries, get a partner and have kids. Don't they?
Or - and here's a radical idea - go home on holiday, fall in love, bring new partner to Japan with them. You've seen that movie, right?

Mathematically impossible, unless we have a meteor strike, nuclear war or similar.

>Like your presumption that "closing breeding doors eventually leads to sterilization and lack of mutative progress."

That's not a presumption.
It's a law. It's called Interbreeding Depression.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression

You're an F1 incestous idiot that uses fallacies and them multiples fallacies and uses the fallacy fallacy nonsense because you lack the intelligence to grasp the Socratic and Scientific Methods.

Oh, but it IS a false dilemma.
And how do you measure "most diversity" being disease related? This is clearly spurious.
If you want to muddy the waters, you must do better than this.

>breed a better quality of human

For what? What is your definition of "better"?

These threads are always trainwrecks of NEETs (most of these are also /pol/-tards) pretending they know anything.
I'll answer with a serious post to enlighten some of you faggots so you can hopefully stop regurgitating retarded shit you heard another retard say once.
Breeding is pretty inefficient. Keep in mind that genes are shuffled during meiosis.
There is not a 1:1 correlation between gene X and intelligence or what have you.
The brain is pretty complex and plastic, and we are no way near having mapped out everything.
All those "GUIZ WE FOUND GENES LINKED TO INTELLIGENCE" are shit studies with shit sample sizes and use stuff like IQ to quantify intelligence, but IQ isn't very accurate for quantifying intelligence in the first place, so take them with a big grain of salt.
Also, eugenics is pretty much 100% pseudoscience, but of course the wishful manchildren in here will never accept that because it conflicts with their ideology.

You do realize how small a population has to get for inbreeding depression right? We could eliminate everyone below an IQ of 115. That's about 84% of the population gone with a std dev of 10. We'd still have over a billion people left. At one pint it was estimated that our species population fell to 10,000-30,000 and we still made it. So clearly your slippery slope fallacy is nonsense.

>blah blah inbred
I'm not even going to bother.

Judging from OP's perfect understanding of "how genetics work" and deliberate "ignorance" on why eugenics is vilified, my best guess would be that his definition of "better" is synonymous to "white".

>Oh, but it IS a false dilemma.
Ok show where.

>And how do you measure "most diversity" being disease related?
I never said it was most. I said enough is.

Your leftism is showing.

>Thinking size has something to due with generational breeding
You're stupid.

>Oh, but it IS a false dilemma.
>Ok show where.
Anytime you say something along the lines of
>it has to be this because it can't be that
or
>it has to be this or this or it's nothing
or
>it has to be this or this
That's what a false dilemma is.
Because you're ignoring the possibility of other options outside of your personal or other's knowledge.

How do you not understand the outlines of fallacies?
If there is a presumption, and you're passing it off as a fact, you're being fallacious.

>Thinking size has something to due with generational breeding
You're stupid. There is an effect of population size on mate availability which matters for inbreeding depression. That's what your whole slippery slope spiel is based on restricting mate availability. Otherwise it has no leg to stand on.

>Anytime you say something along the lines of
Ok but show me where. I know what it is.

>Because you're ignoring the possibility of other options outside of your personal or other's knowledge.
Except I'm not. The point is we have to decide how to move forward and we only know so much. But it's adequate. We can safely assume Huntington's will never (99.9999999% of time) the be advantageous. So there's that one unlikely sceario where it's better, fuck that. Not worth the suffering it causes 99.99999% of the time.

>If there is a presumption, and you're passing it off as a fact, you're being fallacious.
You should learn from this, pot.

>Why is eugenics vilified

Let's do a find-and-replace to make this sentence closer to correct:

>Why is (Hurting people for the lulz with zero scientific backing) vilified?

Shit user I don't know.

Eugenics, however, is fucking applauded. If you get a baby w/ downs syndrome, abort that shit, ain't nobody but Tumblr gonna complain.

>Humans
Eugenics

>Animals
Selective breeding

Yes we do know how it works because we have practised it for centuries, even millennia with certain livestock. The milk cow is a human invention, genetically very far from the aurochs, its ancestor. That was man's doing: creating a cow that was expert at producing milk.

The same principle has been applied to all sorts of animals.
In the case of dog breeding this has led to significant health problems in many pure-bred dogs, but that is because they are being bred FOR FORM AND NOT FOR FUNCTION. We have for centuries successfully bred all kinds of dogs around the world that perform admirably at the tasks they are designed for.

All across the Western world in the 20th century we undertook various eugenics programs, but weak minded leftists and the aftermath of the Jewish holocaust turned us off from those experiments. Actually Hitler took inspiration for his eugenics programs from pioneering American ones.

Sterilising the retarded and the mentally ill, encouraging people with complementary traits to breed together, preventing inferior genetic stock from diluting superior stock, all of these are fine goals to aim for, and would undoubtedly have beneficial effects for the evolution of the human race in the long run.

The funny thing is Hitler went after the population with arguably the highest density of intellectuals. His program can't be termed eugenics in any meaningful way.

I know, encouraging the Jews to get their own country would have been better than killing them all.

>The funny thing is Hitler went after the population with arguably the highest density of intellectuals. His program can't be termed eugenics in any meaningful way.

He was a mad cunt. If you read his work, he wasn't even trying to breed a new, better "Aryan" human - he was trying to get Aryanism BACK into humans after it was lost, because that's how breeding works of course o_0

>All across the Western world in the 20th century we undertook various eugenics programs, but weak minded leftists and the aftermath of the Jewish holocaust turned us off from those experiments. Actually Hitler took inspiration for his eugenics programs from pioneering American ones.
>Sterilising the retarded and the mentally ill, encouraging people with complementary traits to breed together, preventing inferior genetic stock from diluting superior stock, all of these are fine goals to aim for, and would undoubtedly have beneficial effects for the evolution of the human race in the long run.

Lemme just...

>All across the Western world in the 20th century we (Hurt people for lulz with no scientific backing), but weak minded leftists and the aftermath of the Jewish holocaust turned us off from those experiments. Actually Hitler took inspiration for his (Hurt people for lulz with no scientific backing) programs from pioneering American ones.

>(Hurting people for lulz with no scientific backing) the retarded and the mentally ill, encouraging people with complementary traits to breed together, (hurting people for lulz with no scientific backing), all of these are fine goals to aim for, and would undoubtedly have beneficial effects for the evolution of the human race in the long run.

>Why is eugenics vilified?
You know damn well why it's vilified.
>Why is seeking the optimal outcome bad?
Because every civilization that's tried led to ruin and abuse.
>All morals and ethics aside
I can tell you've thought about this a lot. A looot.
>could humans be selectively bred
Well yes, such is only natural.
>to create a better quality of human?
>better quality
Pic related.

Well memed, but wouldn't your talents be better suited for a board like ?

>dog breeding

Try commercial bananas and merino sheep user. Both were selectively bred FOR FUNCTION AND NOT FOR FORM and are now too genetically unfit to survive without human interference.

This is why eugenics is frowned upon by the western scientific community. Yeah the general public hates it because of muh nazis but those who study it oppose it because commercialization of a such methods can outright fuck over the organism.

There's a reason why shit like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault exist in the first place.

Your last statement is a good one, however it lies upon a foundation of assumption that I feel has n rational basis in human behavior.

It is casting the assumption that any rational human individual will look at themselves and accept that they are objectively and genetically inferior, and they should willfully remove themselves from the gene pool, whether it be in abstinence or suicide. We both know that is is not going to happen. It is instinct that we are attracted to specimens that will benefit the next generation, however because of the humans' ability to reason, even irrationally, will always produce some sort of counter-eugenicsesque movement, whether it be intentional or not.

tl;dr, some people are still gonna get it in whether they should or not.

>has n rational basis
Where n=0/1?

Once I read over this after it posted, I fucking knew someone was going to go there.

(-inf,3)

>Sterilising the retarded and the mentally ill

What about sterilizing the criminals?

Commercial interests push GMO crops on farmers; that has nothing to do with eugenics. The prime motive is money: farmers are forced to buy grains that can only yield once, therefore they have to return to the supplier to buy more grain the next year, as opposed to replanting the seed from the previous year (as farmers traditionally would).

I think you are missing the point regarding bananas and sheep however. Sure, they may have become dependent on humans for their survival (just like cows need to be milked twice a day or their udders will hurt and will eventually become ill), but this was deliberate. The only purpose these things serve is to feed us bananas and produce wool (and graze). As for the banana problem, we have other varieties of bananas still growing, especially in topical countries, but in any case I don't see how the banana problem -- little diversity increases vulnerability to disease -- is applicable to humans; after all, globalisation means that human diseases are more likely to spread around the world, yet while certain groups are more vulnerable to disease than others it remains to be seen whether less racial diversity would make any difference here in the case of a global pandemic (probably not).

Technically many criminals are mentally ill, and the average IQ of prison inmates is very low, with, I imagine, a large number of them qualifying for retard status.

Ideally, of course, serious crimes should be punished by death, and in such a way that the criminals do not weigh too heavily on the taxpayer/society (as they do in places like the US, staying on death row for a decade before execution).

We don't. We have cataloged every gene but haven't understood what a fraction of it does.
Certain heritable diseases are freely available in medical records and people who plan to have kids who might have a chance of inheriting said disease are usually informed.

>we know how genetics work
Nope.

It could potentially bring us to extinction in a catastrophic event.
There's a reason why whites are adapted to the cold, and blacks are adapted to the heat. Those are good things, that help ensure our species survival.

Also, we don't really know what genes are worthless, and as you probably already know, selecting people on phenotype really doesn't work, people with attractive phenotypes can still have shitty genes and vice versa. It's why Steve Ballmer isn't the most handsome man in the world, yet hardwired to crush competition.

What's the meme newfriend?

Every major eugenics program - EVERY major eugenics program - that was ever run on force turned out to be shockingly poorly managed.

The modern conception of just testing the fetus and then allowing the parents a choice is going well so far.

In science, if people stopped doing something they did in the past its because it was a stupid idea.

Dogs were bred for physical characteristics, which is theoretically possible for humans. You'd be infringing massively on the personal right to choose your mate so after several generations your great great grandchild might have a marginal increase in strength.

And what's going to happen it's the gene pool will become homogenised which is a very bad thing.

So, if humans should be breed for FUNCTIOn what is the FUNCTION of a human? Act for him, for the society, for the future, for what? How do you decide that? How can you say that your thought of ideal human is the better and not other?

>homogenised

"they" are doing exactly that: the world will be populated by a single brown race incredibly homogenised

why don't you stop them while you still can?

>what is the function
Superior physical aesthetic & athleticism and intellectual ability/mental fortitude (low likelihood of developing mental disorders, etc).
The counter argument is probably one of two things:
a) robust health is more important than athleticism
b) you need some stupid people to do the menial and simple jobs in society for it to function properly.

The counter arguments to those two points are:
a) medical science can compensate where you don't have the genes to be a natural super-centenarian
b)robots are increasingly replacing humans for simple, labour intensive jobs. It is no longer clear that having a lower class of plebeians is beneficial to a harmonious society.

Are you aware that China has been doing this very thing with their athletes (certainly with basketball players) for some time now? This is how people like Yao Ming came to exist. I lived in a university campus in Shanghai for a year and witnessed it with mine own eyes: a dormitory full of giants and giantesses, all impossibly tall and strong.
By the way, I'm not advocating that we should strive to make all humans be 2 meters tall.

>poorly managed
Because it's difficult to make people do things against their will.

>Why is eugenics vilified?
>All morals and ethics aside
There's your problem.

>eye colour and skin colour is the most important type of diversity

>Tumblr gonna complain.
Considering how liberal they are they seem like the least likely ones to complain about abortion.

> i don't find it important so it shouldn't be important for anybody

>i find it important so most people should find it important and think that the world is deliberately being de-diversified by hidden forces.

>having enough diversity to care what other anons think
Time to get euthanizing.

Let me ask you why is this a need for you, I mean, plenty of people live whitout problems today, and humanity seems to be progressing without genetic manipulation. I could only agree with your brackets, but today we know, things are not so simple with gens

> Commercial interests push GMO crops on farmers; that has nothing to do with eugenics.

The hell it doesn't, commercial interests use eugenics to increase production of said crops and traits of animals to maximize profit.

> Sure, they may have become dependent on humans for their survival (just like cows need to be milked twice a day or their udders will hurt and will eventually become ill), but this was deliberate.
>this was deliberate

No one deliberately fucks over their cash crop or animal to the point of being so genetically unfit that they have to invest extra resources just to make sure it doesn't die out.

> but in any case I don't see how the banana problem -- little diversity increases vulnerability to disease -- is applicable to humans;

The banana problem arose because two particular traits, taste and lack of seeds were preferred over everything else.

A similar situation could occur through something like IQ. Where high IQ is preferred globally because of the homogenization of the world economy favoring fields related to technology.

The occurrence of conditions such as myopia and a high-IQ variant of schizophrenia (which does have less negative effects than the typical variant) both have studies that show correlations with high IQ. So the danger here isn't with crippling diseases but with passive conditions that can be address without necessarily fixing the issue (because it's cheaper to the average person) and can allow decrease fitness without being noticed immediately.

>maximize profit
So you think that will be an issue for humans? Eugenics will become a business?

>invest extra resources
The problems with bananas are contingent and I assume the industry focused on the current and previous type of banana because of higher yields and better consumer response.

>The banana problem arose because two particular traits
See, I think we are smarter than that when it comes to selective breeding of humans.

Already with race and show-jumping horses the science of selective breeding is quite advanced. Breeders keep track of known diseases and even whatever recessive genes the horse may be carrying so as to determine which female to inseminate, all while focusing on selecting a pair that will produce the most athletic and well behaved offspring. It's not such a complicated process that we will open the door to huge problems in the human population.

In any case, what I'm advocating is simply preventing lower IQ and crazy people form procreating.The worst possible outcome of such a policy is that it has no effect at all.

Yep, that's why you can't get laid, kek

>thinking
Euthanasia when

Nice sources and excessive extrapolation fag

if you can do a better job go ahead

You don't just go "source: my ass" and then pretend you need to get a reliable counter source to discredit your bullshit. Actually you can't discredit it because it has no credit at all.

sure bro, I can't wait to see your numbers tho

the whole point is that you need a 2.1 TFR for a developed country to maintain the population stable; do you think that white countries will manage?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
(beware, stats are skewed by immigrants, gypsies, etc.)

No one was talking about da joos and I didn't say I supported them and you misunderstand.

Two reasons why open borders isn't bad for the human gene pool.

One, the purpose of a diverse gene pool is so humanity is more resilient to changes in the environment. When disaster happens some people will survive because of certain genes. Then the frequency of these genes in the population then increases because they survive, making humanity as a whole adapt to the disaster. Isolating local gene pools would increase diversity but it wouldn't allow the genes to spread to the rest of humanity.

Two, the world will not homogenise because of the base mutation rate. The mutation rate is in fact a lot higher in a larger population.

Eugenics has a bad reputation because of Nazi Germany and because of slave holders trying to breed stronger slaves

China actually has a massive and long running eugenics program in place with the goal of producing supercommandos
Their Olympic athletes are offshoots and experiments of the larger program

We, the United States, are watching it very closely and have successfully infiltrated it at its highest levels and are learning everything we can from it since eugenics is a big no-no in the Western world

Morals aside you can definitely breed more intelligent and more athletic humans, you can breed for more asinine traits like hair texture but you can also breed for important traits like sensory ability

>China is running an eugenics program
Bullshit
I have no idea why the west thinks this

Because it's true, Chang Li

Why is this thread going when it ended yesterday?
Is this a Williams' Dilemma?

Not that user but European countries would have been in decent shape today if they didn't have two fucking world wars 25 years within each other.

They didn't even give themselves a god damn chance to replenish their numbers for a single generation before going at each other again.

If anyone thought losing well over 15 million Europeans within a half a century wouldn't have major ramifications on population numbers/ fertility rates they're crazy.

It isn't just the current economy or the immigration situation that's causing this to happen.

>Why is this thread going when it ended yesterday?

You mean like the constant Von Neumann circle jerk threads and the memeizuki threads?

Almost nothing new gets discussed here
I just stick around to call out the psychologyfags and economicsfags who isist that they're fields aren't the epitome of pseudoscience

Europe has always been in a constant state of war yet still had a higher population than Africa up until a few decades ago

>I just stick around to call out the psychologyfags and economicsfags who isist that they're fields aren't the epitome of pseudoscience

Same.
Well, then and the /x/tards, /pol/tards and the "I swear I'm a genius, let me prove it by using ego fallacies!" jackasses.

Yeah the IQtards are always pretty hilarious especially given that the actual smart discussion threads dealing with difficult physical concepts are completely void of them

>The mutation rate is in fact a lot higher in a larger population.
False!
The mutation rate is LOWER in a larger population of ONLY BROWNS.

>so humanity is more resilient to changes
The white race is already the more resilient: we can adapt to live in every environment, even the poles, the equator, the highest of the mountais or the bottom of the oceans; blacks can't even swim; Asians have smaller bodies, are slower in running, can't even drink milk for Christ sake; whites have the most diverse diet of all, we are present in the major number of sports at the Olympics, motor sports, chess, deep diving… you name it; we range from equitation little jockeys to huge basketball players.

Going by your reasoning, since the whites have the most diverse eye colors, a part of them will survive if that characteristic is the only one requested to survive; request the light gray eyes to an homogenised population of browns with dark eyes and the humanity will be doomed.

>adapt to the disaster
Sure Asians are capable to adapt to certain disasters: see Japanese and earthquakes; but blacks? camon now, give them a simple famine in Africa and they will do absolutely nothing to survive.

>open borders isn't bad for the human gene pool
Only the white countries are forced to "open borders", not Pakistan, not Taiwan or Chile etc. It's the same with feminism, LGBT and gender shit: they are forced in white countries with the ultimate goal to stop them from having children.

>more resilient
It's almost like you unironically believe in objective fitness functions.

>we are present in the major number of sports at the Olympics

Except for the sprinting sports
If you're not from certain West African ethnic groups you will never be an Olympic medalist in a sprinting sport

sure sure, see pic related...

btw, the terms used were "present" and "major number"

let me train the brain in a school first nigga

Was Von Neumann truly the next step, an anomaly?

>Ramanujan
FTFY

Based Daphne Schippers

>mutation rate is higher in browns
Citation needed.

>white race is more resilient
If whites are more resilient, specifically certain genes, they will spread throughout humanity.

>whites have the most diverse eye colors
And if eye color ever becomes essential to survival the frequency of diversity will increase. Biodiversity does not need certain genes to be prevalent, just that they exist. Opening borders might reduce the diversity of eye colors but they'll still exist.

>adapt to disaster
That's got to do with government response time and infrastructure. Not genes.

>open borders means only white countries do
Did I ever say that? Nope.

>mutation rate is higher in browns
>Citation needed.
I said "lower" and I was referring to a future population of only browns

>genes will spread
they want to suppress the white genes

>government response
a government is like an organism, or a colony of ants: certain governments are more efficient than others because the genes of the ants working for it are better

try again

>I was referring to a future population of only browns
Yeaaaahhh, I was trying to avoid saying it but, did you just conflate gene pool size with mutation rate? Because that would be a terrible source of confusion if either of you wanted to have a serious discussion here.

Its necessary for europeans to breed with superior arabs and blacks.

sure Richard, sure, nobody will ever notice your master plan

It doesnt matter if they notice. They wont do anything against it anyway.

The same applies to /pol/, FYI.

Meme magic doesn't count as doing something.

All white men will go extinct soon. You didnt hear it from me though.