How come eugenics didn't work out?

Oh cool, my friend painted OP's pic.

>I mean, white americans are LITERALLY rejected europeans.

lmao what a fucking tard

he's a good artist. give him a clap on the butt for me pls

Tell your friend that Tracer is best waifu and that he has to do one for her too.

Why would we want a smart population goy?

Come on back to playing video games.

>How come eugenics didn't work out?
Be cause ugly whore mothers like yours will always find betas to serve them

>butthurt american oblivious of history because his education was shit.

In class you are probably told that you were the chosen people put into this land by god himself. Just like american schools refuse to teach biology in preference of creationism.

Americans are a fucking joke.

20th century Eugenics is pretty bad. Mostly for the fact they understood that heritage between parent and children existed, and so did traits. But they had no understanding of what a trait was, or what a good trait was.

Then we got genes later on. Geenes after 60-70 years of hard research is still a gigantic black box.
So simply:
1. We don't understand it
2. Politics is shit at getting experimental science even working

Europeans are LITERALLY Americans without ambition, pride, or modern day relevance

> How come eugenics didn't work out?

Economics took precedent and the United States was never "intentionally" about eugenics.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Does that sound like a country trying to practice eugenics? Oddly enough as pointed out the only group that got any sort of "eugenics" was the blacks due bad conditions weeding out weak. But everyone else was just brought on as labor since european and asian countries couldn't satisfy their own labor pools.

Eugenics was actually practiced in the US and your poem doesn't prove otherwise fyi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

Eugenics was popular in a time before we knew about, could read, and understand DNA. Instead it was based on Quackery like cosmetic traits such as eye and hair color, or phrenology.

The Swedish government was practicing eugenics on my fellow Sami until the 1970s. They were sterilizing us. Which makes Norway trying to kill use Culturally, not look so bad.

Not all populations are like the swedes and can do it levelheaded sad to say.

>poem doesn't prove otherwise

Which is why in your own link it mentions immigration restriction right? Because the U.S. didn't open themselves to waves of poor.

cedarville.edu/resource/education/stories/history/original/sp98story/ssirish9.htm

Eugenics is crap, too long between human generation embryo selection is better

>blacks had to survive hard conditions
>but not the whites though, even though they had to go by boat too, fight the local populations and foreign disease, live in harsh conditions and try to make a living for themselves in the wild, away from civilization

So you're saying that most white people had to physically go to Africa and capture their slaves? Because that's what would have to be true for your comparison to work.

No, in actual fact most American whites do not even descend from slave-owners, let alone slave-catchers, yet most American blacks descend from slaves.

>So you're saying that most white people had to physically go to Africa and capture their slaves?
Can you not read or something?
I quite clearly did not say that. In fact, I didn't even mention Africa

Most white Americans do not descend from settlers.

Eugenics DID work, you're just too stupid to understand it.

Americans increased the athleticism of black populations via selective breeding.

Nazis increased the intelligence of Jewish populations by killing all but the smartest ones.

Ironically enough, eugenics tends to help the populations you try to get rid of.

Not that other guy. In most classes we are told we came to America for freedom of expression and possible riches like the Spaniards found in South America. Not all of American schools refuse to teach biology, and I'm not sure why they would considering there are many religious people who are totally fine with evolution and shit. I think Europe is pretty cool and hopefully you can stop hating amerifats :-]

Your dad settled for your mom.

Yeah they do. The majority of the country was settled in the 19th century when the bulk of what would become white Americans were immigrating.

>How come eugenics didn't work out?
Because they didn't go deep enough into pic related territory

hatians are slaves too but they suck at sport
jews were gods of science before hitler

Hate is murrican thing, comes from latent fear of karma.

Old tale goes: while Soviets considered americans good fellows suffering from bad government - average Joe had in his gut raging hate for every and all Boris.

I saw this documentary with Lisa ling following the lives of test tube babies from supposed geniuses sperm donors and yes the offspring were talented but most ended up living mediocre lives and getting in trouble with the law.

Smart=/= successful

>hatians are slaves too but they suck at sport
Perhaps you think I meant Haiti when I said America.
I did not.
>jews were gods of science before hitler
Hitler was by no means the first to try to exterminate the european jews.

The West's love of individualism forbids any serious attempt at breeding humans like cattle. China will be first. In fact, China's already started; they encourage tall people to have children together in order to create super-tall Chinese, who are then 'encouraged' into sports like basketball, with the hope they'll make it in America and dispel the notion that Chinese people are short/weak.

What makes you say it didnt?

too complex to understand right now.

When you single out white Americans you are actually singling out white and mexican americans because they are usually lumped together

I think his point was the offsping of two smart people is much more likely to be smart than the offspring of two less smart people

even if it isnt 100% its still stupid to act as though its random chance

It did work, we are the strongest country, the rest of the world keeps making jokes about us while living in squalor and being overran, assured that they are the smart ones.

We are so smart you just dont understand, and think we are stupid.

>How come eugenics didn't work out?

>How come a politically motivated sociology experiments didn't work?

Yeah shit user I don't know

There were 62,000 sterilizations in the United States

In a population of 180 million

Is Veeky Forums usually this dumb?

I see you've never been to America and know nothing about it. How's that third world shithole treating you?

This. Eugenics didn't work because of a lack of true understanding and commitment. We also didn't really know what we wanted to do. What's the ideal human?
Furthermore, whenever you selectively breed for a particular trait, there are usually side effects that you haven't taken into account. Look at certain fruits and vegetables. We bred them to be more hardy so we can grow more of them more easily, while sacrificing taste and nutrition.
As some others mentioned, there's also the complex interplay of epigenetics, the effect of the environment on what genes are expressed more. This makes selecting for traits more difficult than just breeding the people that have the highest test scores.

Also, time scales. It takes a long time. We can breed animals and plants because they typically have faster life cycles, so we can fit more generations in a given span of time, making a noticeable change. With humans, you'll likely be dead before you start seeing results. The next generation may not be so keen to keep the plan going.

Eugenics doesn't work because there is no perfect human. Time spent developing a better human would be better spent developing AI and androids.

>Eugenics doesn't work because there is no perfect human.
I'm almost certain that sterilising retards and people with genetic disorders would mean less retards and people with genetic disorders

Don't ask me why, it's an entirely faith-based doctrine

i love to yell at black people on the internet, it's just so epiKKK
legion brothers where we at

Eugenics is a violation of the unspoken contract that binds society together. When society threatens your biological imperatives then you feel no need to play your part in that society.

Rather than ask why eugenics didn't work, let's ask some other questions:
Who would you trust to decide which person is worth more than any other person? What traits are more valuable than others?
Let's look at one example:
Fat people V.S. Skinny people.
Let's assume all of tumblr's belief that fatness is genetic made it true (Much like the Orks of warhammer 40k). Now you have two main types of genetics (As far as fat-to-body weight ratio goes), skinny, and fat. Now, the obvious solution would seem to be to eliminate all of the fat people, but this brings in another problem:
What if the is some form of catastrophe, and food is not as common? Skinny people would not survive as well, due to having little to no fat. Their bodies simply wouldn't be made for no food. But, fat people would have fat reserves, and their bodies would put more priority on saving nutrition rather than metabolizing it. But, then there's another obvious issue: Fat people can't handle times of excess. When there is plenty of food, traits that would normally be useful, become life threatening. Their bodies store away fat, waiting for a famine that never comes. So, what do we do? Well, see, that's the problem with eugenics. Eugenics could never solve this issue, but genetic manipulation could. If you made it so in times of excess, people had an active "skinny gene", but after a while with no food, a protective "fat gene" kicked in, you would get the benefits of each with none of the massive landwhales/starvation.
(Pic unrelated, just didn't have any reaction pics.)

I think that his point was that since evolution is decided by individuals but actually affects the population, then eugenic effect will be seen more clearly on the broad level.

>The point is, the manner in which a kid is raised completely skews any statistically relevant result, resulting in a next generation where people with high IQ (therefore allowed to reproduce) may have "worse brains" but better education

But high IQ individuals can overcome nurture factor more easily, wouldn't it be better to center around creating a better race of humans that has the basis needed to also create a better educational system in general? They wouldn't be so dependent on their enviromen

>What if the is some form of catastrophe, and food is not as common?

With eugenics you're trying to create a new race to direct nature into a more usefull direction.

Humans are out of the usual evolution, we make tools, we create hides and store food while creating shelter. One big enviromental change is not going to wipe all humanity for the selection of some traits. On the contrary, an adapted metabolism to consume more fats, next to a better ability to understand your own enviroment and bigger muscle mass shouldn't be a problem since you would be much more efficient at exactly the porpuse of eugenics; create a man better adapted to civilized life and in return a better ability to such state in case of catastrophe.

You could argue that the changes indicated would increase the metabolism and increase both material and energy consumption, but isn't the point to have a man adapted to get such things more efficiently? And even with these problems a more overall efficient brain is a universal selective trait for human survival,

>Who would you trust to decide which person is worth more than any other person?

I would say that there are two interpretations to this problem. The first one is based around the need of the overall population to increase their biological efficiency in short steps. So the state would favor traits that are needed at the moment and are lacking in the population, if they have educational problems they would center on IQ, if they have a shortage of labor they would center around mass, if they have problems with food they would center around metabolism and so on... and every new trait would be conservated. To avoid lack of variability you could choose people from other populations and set population sectors. The second one centers around the problem of the individual to have heatlhy children with an easier future, so its up to the parents to direct the evolution of humanity based around market needs.

>I'm almost certain that sterilising retards and people with genetic disorders would mean less retards and people with genetic disorders
not by much since most retardation is caused by environmental factors (age of the mother, lack of oxygen at birth, exposure to toxins, etc).

the remainder aren't usually allowed to reproduce anyways.
IQ isn't that heritable.

not that it matters since IQ has been rising on its own for the last century without any attempts to breed for it.

>not that it matters since IQ has been rising on its own for the last century without any attempts to breed for it.

Yes but over how much IQ can be augmented through nurturing until we find a big wall.

I would say that we're getting close; most cientific discoveries have to be done through research teams, outstanding individuals expending long times working around alone are a thing of the past.

Nature vs Nurture in a world that believes strongly in Nurture

why are they really so incompatible?

Can't we use eugenics and strict education programs to engineer a better race?

>chimps have chimp children
>humans have human children
>IQ isn't that heritable.
you must have some leftist/feminist background for sure. or just average western european kek

It did work out, they're called Silicon Valley and New York.
You won't find other places like these in the rest of the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating m8

>but over how much IQ can be augmented through nurturing until we find a big wall.
we will never find that wall.

there are some things that merely knowing them will kill you or silence you completely.

Humanity can't progress past that point, there is no light at the end of that tunnel. In fact the ridiculous monkeys you see all around you are about as smart as they can get. You don't want populations that realize life has no purpose, they are not special snowflakes, none of their dreams will come true, most of their dreams are impossible, they are just cogs in a machine steered by idiots they have absolutely no control over, there is no hope, things won't get better.

there's a reason high IQ types are more likely to commit suicide and less likely to have kids.

>Don't ask me why, it's an entirely faith-based doctrine

It actually is, so... good luck with that.

Hint: Retards already don't breed a lot because women don't want to fuck them, it's a self-solving problem.

>But genetic disorders

Are they bad for reproductive fitness? If so, problem fucking solved already.

>But I can only get hard when I cut open women to carve out their uterus

That's your own god damn problem man.

>>IQ isn't that heritable.
>you must have some leftist/feminist background for sure. or just average western european kek
>This is the Veeky Forums board, I'm sure I won't be called on using a humerous anecdote as evidence for my wrong position

Think again mate

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

Interesting that the same argument is given for why people are transgender as to why people are retarded.

Apparently anything that affects human society cannot be genetic determinism.

How convenient

>Hint: Retards already don't breed a lot because women don't want to fuck them, it's a self-solving problem.
It's not true at all. People with low intelligence, especially women, are actually far more likely to have a shitload of babies rather than having a stimulating career doing something. They also use contraception less effectively.

Rabbits or any other mammal don't sit around thinking "Shit, all these other rabbits are lacking sapience. How unattractive."

They have no concept of higher intelligence. Nethier does a moron.

>It's not true at all. People with low intelligence, especially women, are actually far more likely to have a shitload of babies rather than having a stimulating career doing something. They also use contraception less effectively.

>Retards and low-IQ people are the same

Well I found ONE person who belongs on the short bus.

If the post had said we should sterilize low-IQ people" instead of "we should sterilize retards," maybe you'd make sense but it didn't so you don't.

Since I wrote the post, I would know that I meant retard in the loose pejorative sense for idiots in general

And don't conflate low intelligence with low-IQ

I assumed you were a different poster because I could not bring myself to think of you that you'd be stupid enough to believe people would accept an eugenics broad enough to sterilize all stupid people rather than those with genuine defects.

Marxism won WW2. That's pretty much it.

*she

I'm not stupid enough to say I would accept it

I'm stupid enough to call a spade a spade. I know right? No highly regarded person would dream of it

FFS OP.
Do you not yet know why Czech girls etc have a rep for being drop dead gorgeous?

Oh yeah, must be the veg they eat. Sheesh.