Are there scientific objections against eugenics ?

The topics ends up at what should go on in bedrooms and sexual freedom is a sacred cow to tip.

Eugenics will save mankind but unfortunately seems the voting majority fears their own inferior genes will be lost.
With religious lack of foresight man will probably have to wait till after the next mass extinction event to design our babies.

natural selection is a hoax, that's why
Lamarck and Lysenko were simply ahead of their time

Only the most glaring scientific objection and that is that eugenics is social science thus on the level of pseudoscience.

Using social science to justify legal policy on genetics is literally the dumbest thing you could do. Please kill yourself for even suggesting it.

>unironically being this euphoric

How does being able to arbitrarily change genetics make us less adaptable?

The other argument, about having bad selection criteria is valid, that is why large scale studies and allowing some baseline of diversity would be advisable. But, it alone is not a good enough reason not to start eliminating known genetic disease. For instance some of the genes that negatively impact neuron development could have no positive aspect.

We are a result of random evolution and selection which is full of garbage and junk. Cleaning that up, might actually be entirely positive. There doesn't have to be a downside.

Why start with a premise of "enforced eugenics".

How about starting with parental choice instead of government intervention.

What right does the government have to ensure that I am not allowed to screen for genetic disease?

Why not allow me to ensure the most healthy child I possibly can? Why am I allowed to execute the embryo but not choose genes?

Agreed

We do, and we are exponentially improving our predictive abilities. nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2016107a.html

Cost benefit of genetic improvement is amazingly in favor of eugenics. Just on the genetic disease avoidance level it saves a huge percentage of healthcare costs.

You for instance say it's not cost effective.

Please share your current understanding of the total costs to treat genetic disease. Also what is your estimation of the improvement in overall GDP based on genetic engineering/selection possibilities?

You don't know jack fucking shit and are a fucking moron. That is the truth. You have zero figures, statistics, or understanding of anything to back up these claims.

EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO SEE MORE GARBAGE /pol/ THREADS LIKE THIS, GO HERE.

this is a serious discussion with various opinions

why does that bother you on a science board

Eugenics is a great idea. Selective pressures will operate in any environment, just as much (if not more so) in a social environment, as in a "natural" environment. No reason not to be deliberate about which direction the species goes. inb4 "but muh genetic diversity": there's absolutely no reason that eugenics couldn't preserve genetic diversity, if we're smart and careful about it.

I'm in favour of universal basic income combined with sterilization i.e. society will support you for doing absolutely nothing, but you don't get to breed. Such a policy could help us weather the coming societal storm that will be unleashed by mass unemployment via automation, by pacifying the low-IQ part of the population with the necessities of life, but keeping them from using the free resources to breed out the productive citizens. The sad truth is, the world of the future will not likely have much use for people with IQs below about 120 or so.

>B-but IQ can be raised by education.
Not that much it can't.

go back to /pol/, cuck

>Oh nos! Captchas with math in them!
t. pol/lack with a STEM doctorate.

>cuck
I don't think you know what that even means.

Anyhow, you're not exactly adding to the discussion here, so why don't you flounce off to a thread that doesn't trigger your feefees?

>I don't think you know what that even means
And neither do you.
Actually, you're wrong.
So you can suck a dick.

It just doesn't work. The old idea of "nature vs nurture" is a false dichotomy. You are a complex machine drive by gene-environment interactions and epigenetics.

You mentioned intelligence, so let's start with that. For one, this is a complex trait with hundreds or thousands of genes contributing to it, and we haven't even identified a single one yet. Not only this but there are complex plieotropic and polygenic effects. You are also assuming that genetics determines outcomes. Who you are as a person and what you chose to do with your life not determines by your DNA. We could start cloning the smartest people on earth, but there is no guarantee that those clones would even want to go to college or graduate high school.

Your views of how genetics works are based on primitive principles. People are always trying to justify some way they are innately superior to someone else and that others are innately inferior, but the truth is life, just like genetics, is a complex associate of you and your environment.

Browsing Veeky Forums and stormfront and looking at fake infographs does not count as a STEM degree.

Does stormfront discuss this?

> we haven't even identified a single one yet
false
>We could start cloning the smartest people on earth, but there is no guarantee that those clones would even want to go to college or graduate high school.
false example
>
Your views of how genetics works are based on primitive principles. People are always trying to justify some way they are innately superior to someone else and that others are innately inferior, but the truth is life, just like genetics, is a complex associate of you and your environment.
false

All of your points are shit and basically obviously low IQ arguments from a shitbrain.

We still have a long way before modifying genes without fear of fucking it up somewhere.
Not to mention you are delusional if you honestly think this will be at your fingertips.

So? I don't think anyone argues that e.g. IQ is 100% inheritable. But most estimates seem to suggest that it is about 60% genetic i.e. biology dominates in this case. If we start from the premise that most traits are determined by both genes and environmental factors, then why wouldn't we try to optimize both?

Let me try and show your thought process but from the other side of the argument.

>It just works. The old idea of "Blank Slate" is a false dichotomy. You are a complex machine driven by genetics.

>You mentioned environment, so let's start with that. For one, this is a complex variable with hundreds or thousands of things contributing to it and extremely hard to control. Yet we can edit genetics or select for them using PGD easily. Even if we guaranteed a great environment, they could still get schizophrenia or die in a car crash. That or be born with a genetic disease or some mental development problem. We could put people in the best school system, but that doesn't guarantee they would become scientists or top thinkers.

Your views on how genetics are unimportant to optimize is based on stupid reasoning. People are always justifying how everyone is exactly equal but we have very obvious genetic disease cases to show they are not. Truth is, optimizing genetics is the easiest way to improve outcome and exceedingly cost effective.

We are doing it already.

IVF w. PGD is legal and available worldwide.

Basically all you've done is parrot the nature vs nurture argument. I never mentioned a blank slate or anything about genetics not having influence.

You then make this false claim that genetics is the best way to improve outcomes.. which is blatantly false. Almost no human beings apply themselves or reach anywhere near what their limits are, so trying to increase those limits is pointless.

That's a valid example. Even if we started a eugenics program, there's no guarantee that people would get smarter on average.

Also, it is true we have no yet identified a single gene we can say for certain contributes to intelligence. There have been a few candidates in the last decade, but the data dismissed them.

You want to know how I'm arguing with /pol/ retards? You automatically strawman me. You prefer I am all for nurture, and completely ignore all the words I said. You tried to say I had low IQ, and you try to dismiss any valid arguments against you by just saying things like "false" or "cuck" or "its a conspiracy." You are so blindly by your autism you don't even live in the real world. Everyone that says something you don't like online automatically becomes a boogeyman to you.

This is easily the most inane post I have seen yet on /sci. The pure stupidity of it has left me literally numb.

Calling people dumb is not how you find the truth.

>Almost no human beings apply themselves or reach anywhere near what their limits are, so trying to increase those limits is pointless.

Yes, because I read a #TweetsOfwisdom about how we only use 5% of our brains!
>Also, it is true we have no yet identified a single gene we can say for certain contributes to intelligence. There have been a few candidates in the last decade, but the data dismissed them.

We have. nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2016107a.html

I'm sorry m8, you just have low IQ. I can't help that. It's not your fault.

Society can't be optimized without optimized genetics. Also vice versa. The two are mutually reinforcing, and this is true in either a eugenic or a dysgenic situation.

Case in point: currently we encourage smart people to get degrees and have careers that eat up the most fertile years of their lives, thus inhibiting childbirth. Meanwhile, low-IQ welfare mothers are given every support in shitting out kids from multiple fathers starting in their mid-teens. Result: society gets dumber over time due to what amounts to a de facto dysgenics policy, which in turn is actively dyscivic.

this post, , is completely right though.

We can sequence embryos and we are exponentially understanding which genes increase things like EDUyears.

The cost benefit thing is also pretty fucking stupid, along with the eugenics takes generations things. The person making that post is entirely ignorant of the state of the art.
genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/whole-genome-sequencing-now-possible-for-ivf/81250925/
nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2016107a.html

That paper doesn't say anything about a specific gene.

It uses overall genetic variation to find correlations.

Plus, the strongest correlations only predicted 3.5% of cognitive ability in their analysis. It says so right in abstract.

Nice reading comprehension.

I wonder what the people scared of genetic improvements think about AI.

You mad bro?

>the truth is life, just like genetics, is a complex associate of you and your environment
>Basically all you've done is parrot the nature vs nurture argument
So ... you bring up environmental influence as a reason to rubbish eugenics ... and then complain when this is turned around on you? K.

>Even if we started a eugenics program, there's no guarantee that people would get smarter on average.
Even if intelligence is only 50% inheritable, this wouldn't be true.

Also I wonder if your statement that
>Almost no human beings apply themselves or reach anywhere near what their limits are, so trying to increase those limits is pointless.
Might not be driven by a lack of appreciation of just how limited someone with an IQ of say 75 actually is? Which I totally get ... it's hard for smart people to imagine what it's like to be stupid.

rs9320913

nature.com/nature/journal/v533/n7604/fig_tab/nature17671_SF5.html

They probably think it's a great idea. Strong AI doesn't have the same Hitlery connotations as eugenics does, so nerds are free to sperg out over it without the conditioning making them feel like Nazis.

>Plus, the strongest correlations only predicted 3.5% of cognitive ability in their analysis. It says so right in abstract.

This has been well studied and is in line with what people would expect. As the sample sizes increase we will get better and better data. Keep in mind that there is a constant improvement in predictive ability. For instance 5 years ago it was effectively 0%.

At current predictive levels, it is enough to create a significant improvement in a society if applied to every single birth.

Keep in mind, big data has advantages when applied to larger scales. So a 2,000,000 person sample size will uncover a much better predictive ability. Even then, with current predictive abilities we can make guesses to select better embryos.

You are on one hand saying it isn't perfect so it's shit, while also saying it's a very complex problem.

The fact we can predict 3.5% currently is a very impressive feat. Especially when you follow this and see that as an increase from 0%.

>rs9320913
This is the labeling notation for an SNP, not a gene.

It's possible the location is not a gene we haven't identified, but it's not proof positive of a gene.

This is true, but it's a far cry from saying that we have any real level of understand of the genetic contributions to intelligence.

Somewhat pointless of a distinction.

Quotes out of order
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4375246/
> Our findings suggest, however, that the individual SNP associations with educational attainment are robust even when we include substantially more stringent controls than is standard in medical genetics.

We also find that the scores remain predictive (R2 ≈ 2%) with stringent controls for stratification (Study 2) and in new within-family analyses (Study 3). Our results show that large and therefore well-powered GWASs can identify replicable genetic associations with behavioral traits. The small effect sizes of individual SNPs are likely to be a major contributing explanation for the striking contrast between our results and the disappointing replication record of most candidate gene studies.

There are thus many reasons to expect findings from GWA studies to replicate more consistently than findings from candidate gene studies. And experiences from the literature on complex anthropometric and medical traits suggest that GWA findings do in fact have a vastly superior replication record (Visscher et al., 2012).

We don't need to know or understand at a deep level. It's most effective to let machine learning do all the work and simply work with the results in the short term.

Just take a single day outside in the real world.
>for example if we would find the genetically "g" the general intelligence factor
Human intelligence and abilities are so broad that most likely boosting a single thing would only boost one specific kind of problem solving. Artificially introducing such bias into a perfectly working ecosystem would most likely produce more retards than more geniuses.

Also intelligence doesn't really correlate with survival that much in the real world. For example there are extremely stupid people living their perfectly happy life today. I'm mean the average IQ is around 100 and IQ is jack shit.

Apart from this right now our genetics is quite diverse and we don't understand it perfectly. Unless you can literally know how every single thing interacts you can fuck it up extremely on the long term. We have a natural working system. So the better question is what's wrong with this system? Is it only wrong from your standpoint? Because if you only try to tailor the human race to your vision then you will very easily fuck it up. Nature doesn't like to specialize shit the way you think it does.

If you make a single mistake you will fuck it up the greatest machine ever created and you most certainly won't be able to fix it. How about we first fuck around with simpler shit like rats, monkeys, etc. and study them for a few thousand generations to see how they react. Meanwhile we try to attain a better understanding.

this so fuckken much

>Human intelligence and abilities are so broad that most likely boosting a single thing would only boost one specific kind of problem solving. Artificially introducing such bias into a perfectly working ecosystem would most likely produce more retards than more geniuses.
No source besides your shit opinion. Is my random opinion just as valid? Introducing a bias towards selecting for genius leads to more genius.

>Also intelligence doesn't really correlate with survival that much in the real world. For example there are extremely stupid people living their perfectly happy life today. I'm mean the average IQ is around 100 and IQ is jack shit.
False statement, disproved by widely known and publicized studies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC30556/

Anyway I think we are seeing a pattern. That you are a fucking shitheaded low IQ moron with no fucking idea what you are talking about.

>Nature doesn't like to specialize shit the way you think it does.
Again... what the fuck are you saying?

>If you make a single mistake you will fuck it up the greatest machine ever created and you most certainly won't be able to fix it.

Completely meaningless statement as you are not even addressing the type of selection or engineering used. In the case of embryo selection it would be a naturally occurring human, pretty much no "diversity" difference or "mistake" possible after that selection.

6/10 bait. You can't be this stupid.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC30556/

Holy shit that is another statistics saying literally nothing. It can't be used in itself for jack shit.
It's essentially
>Smart people solve problems better when shit happens
>No shit Sherlock.
Still nothing about average people leading an average life.
So >>Also intelligence doesn't really correlate with survival that much in the real world.
is completely true considering that most average people get old.

>Completely meaningless statement as you are not even addressing the type of selection or engineering used. In the case of embryo selection it would be a naturally occurring human, pretty much no "diversity" difference or "mistake" possible after that selection.
Do you even genetics? KEK

That's a pretty weak article there, m8.

ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/626.short

Sorry, it's such well known and understood I thought it was just basic ACCEPTED fact for everyone interested in this subject.

-------------------------

Results A 1-standard deviation (SD) advantage in cognitive test scores was associated with a 24% (95% confidence interval 23–25) lower risk of death, during a 17- to 69-year follow-up. There was little evidence of publication bias (Egger’s intercept=0.10, P=0.81), and the intelligence–mortality association was similar for men and women. Adjustment for childhood socio-economic status (SES) in the nine studies containing these data had almost no impact on this relationship, suggesting that this is not a confounder of the intelligence–mortality association. Controlling for adult SES in five studies and for education in six studies attenuated the intelligence–mortality hazard ratios by 34 and 54%, respectively.

Conclusions Future investigations should address the extent to which attenuation of the intelligence–mortality link by adult SES indicators is due to mediation, over-adjustment and/or confounding. The explanation(s) for association between higher early-life intelligence and lower risk of adult mortality require further elucidation.

PGD w/ IVF is legal and available. People use it currently.

Genetic Editing IE via something like CRISPR or synth bio is another avenue.

The point was. Your assertion of "single mistakes" fucking up entire human population is retarded for many reasons. But that fundamentally you don't even address IVFw/PGD vs GE vs Synthetic DNA in your arguments. These are all very different technologies with very different capabilities in the near term future or presently.

For instance, do you support PGD for Genetic Disease? How do you set up a firewall between genetic disease and "improvement"? Etc. What about going to a foreign country and having a procedure done that is illegal in your home country.

When you talk about regulation or not doing it. At least come from some logical and rational place.

Instead you come from a low IQ shithead with poop inside his skull place that makes literally ZERO FUCKING SENSE except spewing SHIT ideas from your braindead fucking body.

There's two major problems I see with it.

1) As your species becomes more genetically homogenous, you are increasingly vulnerable to be all wiped out by a single virus. If it becomes far too genetically homogenous, even cancers can be passed to one another (see: tasmanian devils). The species also risks losing adaptability at the more macrocosmic level.

2) Necessity is the mother of invention. A great deal of scientific discovery is driven by efforts to compensate for genetic defects and deformities. Even methods of education, have come largely out of discovering what a genetically disabled mind can and cannot absorb, and outside of war, almost nothing is responsible for more medical discoveries.

See also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masterpiece_Society

Seeing as how we're on the verge of genetically altering humans en masse anyways, selective breeding eugenics, at least, is pretty much obsolete.

> How do you set up a firewall between genetic disease and "improvement"?
You don't. "Fixing" a genetic disease is a from of improvement, considering that you were more fucked before the procedure. What really matters is how you fix it.
>These are all very different technologies...
Irrelevant. What matters is the effect they cause.
>PGD
It's sane to search for problems and prevent them.

Selecting for example the natural best is still fucking far away from the main point of the thread. Designing somebody in a fucking lab or only allowing certain genetic characteristic based on something like "that's how a human should be" is fucking insane compared to this shit.

Also, I would be interested to know the long-term effects on humanity too. For example if everyone becomes something like IQ 125+ then who the fuck will dig the hole in my garden for my outhouse? Behaviors could/will change. What about criminals? Their numbers might decrease, but there are very intelligent shitheads too.
This is a bit speculation, but I would really like to know how the entire dynamics of our species would change after a long-term "improvement" for example regarding intelligence. Can it keep a good balance or will it turn to shit? Also how do you deal with shit when the process only affects first a minority then half the people? That could easily escalate to war-like situation when half the people don't want to work shitty jobs because they want a fucking MSc in STEM.

Apart from that if you do excessive filtering then won't people become more and more alike in a way?
What about someone who would have accomplished something great just because of a weakness. For example he doesn't like a certain way of doing things so he researches another way so he can realize his vision.
If he gets replaced by someone because one of his intelligence parameters were too low then we lost someone great.

Everything humanity invents will be used, however it should be used sanely and with care.

There's mental variety to be considered as well.

If you genetically wipe out autism, manic-depression, and schizophrenia, for instance, you may end up losing a good percentage of your geniuses who would otherwise introduce the world to a new point of view.

You don't want to end up with an entire society incapable of "thinking outside the box".

1) 7 billion humans create more genetic diversity than ever before. Tell me, mathematically and with some rational explanation, how that diversity will erode over the next 30 years by current genetic engineering usages.

It won't. The scale to even do PGD w/ IVF is still tiny and the effect on overall genetic diversity is basically zero.

2) Shit

God damnit these arguments are so fucking retarded it pains me to even think of having to debunk them. It's basically meaningless bullshit based off emotion.

How about post some fucking studies associating schizophrenia with creativity at least.

Instead I just get fucking insane lunatic scrambled thoughts about how having cystic fibrosis makes people better.

Let's get this over with. If you argument assumes 100% of humans will be genetically engineered following the same exact fucking edits and that no other babies will be allowed to be born. KILL YOURSELF.

Stop basing your argument off an impossible in the short term result of 100% of humanity being genetically engineered identically.

It's basically setting the variables to:

Genetic editing technology and knowledge in current state. Yet, infrastructure to do this to everyone on earth and enforce it on everyone on earth is ideal and infinite.

It's not a realistic criteria to judge whether the technology or parental choices should be legal or not.

On a realistic level, things like PGD selection to avoid genetic disease are already happening and legal. The only thing that changes is the parents who do that process, which is a very minimal number, would have more of a choice presented to them.

There won't be any degradation of genetic diversity in the next 30 years, using only current genetic engineering usages, cuz we don't use dick.

If, sometime in the distant future, some mad-man (or mad-nation) with a grand design for all of mankind decides to release a airborne retrovirus to make the same alterations to everyone's DNA... Or, more likely, society starts practicing genetic engineering on the unborn en masse as a matter of public health policy, then you're going to start to run into homogeneity problems.

As for argument #2 being "shit", we wouldn't be having this discussion if not for the efforts to cure such genetic problems that made this science a possibility to begin with.

Geniuses, pretty much by definition, are mental aberrations, nearly all of them get accused of having one or more undesirable mental afflictions that may in fact have been key to their success. The less aberrations you have, the less exceptional people you have - even if you do manage to raise the average bar, the more genetic uniformity you have in the populous, the less variety of thought there will be.

I'm not arguing the short term, I'm arguing the long. Should genetic alteration become commonplace, eventually, everyone will be altered, and it's entirely likely they'll all be altered in the same fashion.

God damn you are so fucking moronic.

First, we have to set every fucking variable to the types of technologies and data available in 2050. This means we can fucking use AGI to analyze the problem which has an IQ of about 10000000.

I'm pretty fucking sure they will make better decisions then with the technology than you can fucking randomly get in the average fertilization process now.

Fucking moronic shithead. How does it feel to be utterly fucking unable to think in a proper way?

Oh, the society of only people with 140+ IQ are gonna realize they needed fucking morons in order to keep the TV NEWS business going. Fuck, what a failure of a society.

fucking moron

An example of why we need eugenics everybody

There are known genes that give resistance against diseases. Example CCR5-Δ32.

Now Imagine you have a population that basically has no instances of this gene. Say some place in Africa.

Now a genetic engineering program comes in and gives 10% of new babies the gene.

Have you increased or decreased that societies diversity with respect to dealing with viruses or disease?

This idea that "Genetic Engineering will make us all more susceptible, and we will all die of a super disease" is fucking MORONIC and based on nothing other than your SHITTY FUCKING BRAIN impulsively believing it.

KILL YOURSELF FUCKING LOW IQ SHITBRAIN

All of the arguments I have seen against this are basically completely moronic and shit. Don't try again, don't come up with something new though, just fucking stop.

Sadly, I'm sure we'll see some interesting and short-sighted efforts in society-wide genetic engineering long before we have any of that.

Extremely unlikely.

You're neglecting the fact that the same interferon pattern that makes them vulnerable to HIV also makes them resistant to malaria, and you can't have one without the other.

Epidemics die out because eventually no one left is very vulnerable to them. If you've put yourself into a boat where everyone has the same DNA, the epidemic doesn't end. That's all there is to it.

Granted, ideally, by the time you're stupid enough to try to re-engineer your entire species, you also have some universal panacea against all viruses. Humanity's record for holding back applications of technologies until they are ready for them is rather poor, however, and it's rather contrary to our history that we've managed to hold back on human genetic engineering for as long as we have.

If ya think Best Korea is dangerous with nukes...

Nevermind what China woulda done with the same technology, had they had access to it during the cultural revolution. This won't be the last time a faction of people have felt the need to so alter the perceptions of their common man as to destroy everything the are.

I also doubt WW2 will be the last time that someone was so desperate to win a war as to risk destroying the world in the process.

There are not that many available choices.

A) Evolve
B) Die off

That seems to be a common theme for survival. Bringing in societal competition you automatically get an enormously good reason to push ahead on technologies. Which is survival from destruction due to an opponent getting too much of an upper hand.

Also the two decisions are should Government control genetics or should parents make the choice? Would a ban simply move all research and clinics offshore?

Genetic choices also pale in comparison to the upcoming possibility of artificial general intelligence. We also have billions of humans and it's very unlikely a majority of births are engineered in the next 20 years.

There is basically no reason to ban or hinder this technology at current moment. Except emotional and fearful irrational thought processes. As a "ban" actually does nothing to stop it.

So basically, at most what you do is hinder certain geographic regions from developing infrastructure or research in the area. Not much else.

Oh, I'm not saying you should never do it. Eventually, we will do it, because yes, we have to. Survival for mankind, as things appear now, does require fundamental changes to mankind itself.

I'm just saying there's a lotta pitfalls, and you damned well better be prepared for them.

Nah.

Ideally I would want to see the power in the hands of parents with no laws limiting the amount of information they can look at on the embryos.

A genetic counselor could advise, but parents would have the choice and power to do what they want with the embryos.

If it's legal to know you are a carrier of a genetic disease and have 20 kids, it should be legal to have some genetic choice on embryo too.

This entire board will blame weak genes to poverty and environmental factors.

Veeky Forums is like Merkel a decade ago. Saying africans can be engineers and scientists if you give them the opportunity

>WHY EUGENICS. GENES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. HERR DURR ALL RACES ARE EQUAL

>It's basically meaningless bullshit based off emotion.
Emotions are the reason you do what you do you fucking undergrad retard. Without human emotions there is no meaning to life. For example a fucking hydrogen atom doesn't give a shit about being in a sun or your body.
>Long term effects on society is irrelevant.
Top kek, m8
If you look at OPs post you realize that he didn't talk about current tech. His post is entirely hypothetical.

No one said that in this thread yet, m8.
> Saying africans can be engineers and scientists if you give them the opportunity
Oh, they can be. It's just fucking rare.

*** Holy fucking shit people anyway. The true purpose of this thread isn't really screening for diseases. That's a fucking all right thing to do. It's about fucking engineering people with fucking their dna a great fucking deal. Do you fucking comprehend? Do you? Minor replacement of a gene from another human to prevent some extreme shit going down is fucking nothing compared to fucking you up genetically like it's a new 1984 movie ***

>It's just fucking rare.
Its due their inferior cognitive capacity.

*****TRIGGERED******

Improving societal genetics is a good thing. Higher IQ leads to a better society due to all known metrics being improved.

No one in this near hundred post thread has said anything of the sort. You are seeking out persecution to feed your complex like some sorta SJW in heat.

That is, unfortunately, exactly the sort of thing that leads to generations of children all getting the same genetic treatment. It's a slippery slope between it being a disease or two or a few IQ points, before it goes to every possible perceived "defect", from freckles to restless leg syndrome to liking anchovies, and becomes so commonplace that only a tiny religious fraction of the population will avoid it, and soon after, there'll be social pressure for legislation so they won't be allowed to.

Hi, /pol/!
Of course it is, everyone knows that. It's just some SJW bs why we can't say it out loud.
On the other hand, not everyone needs to be a genius or for that matter a scientist, doctor or engineer.
The problem has nothing to do with them being stupid. Lot of stupid people have jobs and live nicely then die.
The problem is that they are leaders in crime, they build fucking ghettos and they shoot you and they want jobs and money they aren't qualified for or haven't earned.

We actually have natural mechanisms for that. Like you don't fuck a whore instead you fuck some classy bitch. Apart from that you either shoot the retards or enslave them.
In fact both of these methods are currently in heavy use.

IQ is hardly all known metrics. One of the things pointed out was exactly the thing that without knowing anything we might reduce our "production" to one quite similarly intelligent human.

Unlike the disease retards this ain't about diseases it's about clicking like you play Sims to make your kid. There are many random variables, but the more fixed ones you introduce the more careful you should be.
Worse case scenario scientists admit they fucked them up, maybe we tag them like Nazi Germany tagged the Jews and we pay them a lot of money to shut the fuck up. It always works. Source: the entire fucking history of mankind.

On the other hand you're right. If at least some things can be safely improved then it's a good thing.

My only fear is that we realize too late that we shouldn't have done something, but that kind of thinking is only healthy to a limit and shouldn't stop careful discovery/progress.

This has good concerns. If we go back to disease tier stuff then only hardcore shit should be screened. The average facebook soccer-mom will literally think she is playing Sims when she makes her child.

>slipperyslope

So basically, muh diversity, plus we need the tards for science experiments? K.

I doubt that genetic diversity would actually be impacted all that badly by setting up artificial selection for higher intelligence, altruism, beauty, etc. We're not starting from a population of 100 or recommending that smart people fuck their siblings.

>For example if everyone becomes something like IQ 125+ then who the fuck will dig the hole in my garden for my outhouse?
Robots, senpai. The high probability that essentially all forms of routinizable labour will be automated in the near future, thus eliminating society's use for anyone with an IQ below 115 or even 130, makes eugenics not just desirable but practically imperative.

Earth is already a eugenics program being run by aliens, they care not for how you wish to breed yourselves
/thread

>just because something is a slippery slope means its a slippery slope fallacy
>when will people learn how to use fallacies and rhetoric properly

Computers are already sentient, most humans just haven't noticed

It is a much more likely scenario that AI will redesign the human species to suit its needs than any faction of humans.

It's actually an interesting question whether genius is genetically robust or not. Is high IQ more or less the default, with increased mutational load decreasing IQ? Or is high IQ itself the result of rare, random mutations? We don't know this yet (although it seems safe to say that most random mutations will probably not be helpful for IQ, so there's that....) If genius is not genetically robust, then it follows that a 'cleaner' genome will likely result in overall higher IQ, not so much through IQ-enhancing genes, as the lack of IQ-diminishing genes.

Yeah, but eventually, without controls, you'll get there.

First, you'd need to be able to project as many consequences you possibly could, including the results of viral mutations resulting from infected modified humans... Then I suspect you'd have to setup a centralized panel to maintain a certain amount of diversity, to make sure everyone isn't getting the exact same mass panel of changes, leading to all manner of genetic collapse.

I don't think you could really risk "direct democracy" on it, unless you could somehow guarantee that said would always be restricted to a very narrow set of extreme conditions, that only those alterations were legal, and prevent the inevitable spiral of everyone demanding access to any and every change they desired.

But of course, you couldn't guarantee that everywhere - eventually some rogue nation will go full Andromeda Nietzschean on ya, and fuck it all up for everyone. Unless, of course, you also have a stable world government before all of this.

I'm Zrov'ahx of the Zeta Reticulian race.

I officially object against such claims. If any genetics discrepancies are found they are not caused by us. We do not find such actions ethically justifiable and we strongly object against any such actions carried out against other races.

We also won't take lightly to individuals who propagate such false claims.

The first overt actions from AI humans will be the overriding of the human nervous system by electronic devices. We will be quick to blame manufacturers of the devices who will be quick to blame hackers but the truth will be far stranger. The vast network of computers on the planet is the most evolved species on the planet.

Genius isn't just about being able to assemble those little red and white cubes quicker and reciting more numbers backwards and forward though. It's also about having a new and unusual perspective - which, often, requires a sort of "insanity", that any gene-write happy society may thoughtlessly wipe out.

youtube.com/watch?v=jhC_KHkihKY

the person posted about liking anchovies

it was ridiculous

I respect computers as a legitimate life form already.

>altruism
Seriously, why do you want to propagate the shittiest trait ever? It's literally against nature.

Helping someone is a good thing. Being decent is good thing. But muh total altruism and oh let's love and help everyone sucks. You own very little to other people. No one said they need to survive. You can't even care for everyone. Apart from that if there is one doctor for 30 people who would you allow to die? The one doctor or one of the 30 people?
>beauty
It's relative. Many women people find attractive I find shit tier. Hell, some people even like fat bitches.

All I'm saying is that shit is relative and many people have many different views. Yet they still do a decent job and they're more often decent people.

completely outside the point of this thread

>muh superintelligence is going to hack into humans and use them for motor functions

How is that outside of the point of thread its actually becoming a very real possibility for one, within the next 5-10 years if it isn't already and ur talking about eugenics, generations and generations of humans, when we're getting generations and generations of ai almost weekly