Eugenics

Myostatin mutation: increases muscle mass, making our laborers more efficient
Apo-E allele 2: Drastic reduction in Alzheimer's, meaning we can keep our best specialists around to work for longer. (This will lead to a minor increase in cholesterolemia, but see below.)
LDRL mutations: decrease heart disease.
Giant breasts: low breastfeeding is a BG risk factor for health for health problems in infants, with bigger breasts, women will be better able to nourish children. Maybe we could figure out a way to make it painful for the woman if she goes too long without breastfeeding.
Big lips: to help the baby breastfeed better.
CCR 5 delta-32 mutation: say goodbye to AIDS
Chinky eyes: less moisture loss from evaporation, and less dust in eyes.

Variety is good but there are certain things that are objectively better.

It’s a good trait to have. Society is just a multi-human organism that conveniently provides you with the nutrients needed to survive and produce. You've become docile and followed a story much like that of the mitochondria which became a servant of the cell if you don't believe we should have gene that allows us to be self-sufficient regardless of whether they have any benefit in the current era.

>Dark skin (less chance of skin cancer)
It makes it harder to get vitamin D so it's not objectively "better".

Higher visual acuity will negatively impact your cognitive abilities, since visual professing is very computationally expensive and already takes uo a proportionally large amount of the brain. Humans are smarter than neanderthals because we evolved a lower visual acuity, despite also having a lower brain case volume.

Lots of people died from scurvy because we didn't know about vitamins.

Its a trade-off. Its objectively better to have a vitamin D deficiency that can be supplemented by other mean than risk getting cancer. Do you disagree?

It makes more sense to take a vitamin D supplement than deal with chemo and sunscreen application desu.

Yes.

I'd rather be white and apply sunscreen than black and take vitamin d.

No studies have been able to correlate larger breasts with more milk production. They contain more fat, not more milk production facility.

An optimal breast size would be one that allows the baby to suckle comfortably without causing back problems throughout the other parts of the woman's life. This eliminates D cups and above outright for the sake of the mother and mitigates the A cup for the sake of the child. The objectively best sizes in these regards fall between the B and C cups, with a pointed or puffy nipple.

Additionally, a baby's latch is better correlated with the strength of the corners of the face. Stronger cheek muscles make for a better and better latch, while larger lips only matter up to a limit.

If you've had a child in any recent time, you know a lot of this minutia, if only because your partner won't shut up about it.

That is wrong. Eagles and many other birds of prey have much higher visual acuity than humans. The brain doesn't follow the same architecture as computers so double the information processing capacity doesn't necessarily require double the "transistors".

Then that is your opinion.

>Dark skin (less chance of skin cancer)
>Dark eyes (less chance of macular degeneration.)
I tend to disagree. There must be a reason blue eyes and white skin still exists in the world, we just haven't figured it out.
Plus I really like my blue eyes, thank you

>Plus I really like my blue eyes, thank you

See:

Wasn't there some study that showed that sexual dimorphism would increase over time, with males being tall and lanky, while the females become short and stocky?

>That is wrong
No, you're wrong: look it up. Do you see eagles posting on Veeky Forums about how their good eyesight hasn't affected their cognitive abilities? No? I didn't think so. They're dumb fucking birds.

I realize that brains aren't turing machines, but visual processing is still comparatively much more expensive. The multi-layer convulutional neural networks used in modern machine learning applications are absolutely massive compared to those used for text analysis.

It could well be that blue eyes and pale skin were simply selected for due to aesthetic reasons. They could be good for nothing but finding mates.

>I really like my blue eyes

If you think feels trump reals, then you don't belong in stem.

We are not to be genetically engineered anyway, not at that level at least.

Imagine a world of identical clones...

What's wrong with removing a mutation that is linked to macular degeneration? Are you seriously suggesting that a superficial increase in aesthetic diversity trumps health concerns?

Then you're going to have to agree to purging dummies as well

The social and societal impacts of such a genetic engineering should not be swept aside. People like blue eyes, they make songs and write poems about it. Same way with being tall, being red haired, anything. I don't think people would be happy in a colourless society of nearly identical clones, especially if they have access to books from the past.

I also think that the human body is outside of such genetic experimentation. Trick our genes to cure cancer, and it's perfect (as long as it's given to all and not just the ultra-rich). Trick our genes to make everyone blond, or black, or anything, and it's to me the downside largely outweigh the benefits.

>If you think feels trump reals, then you don't belong in stem.
Feelings, well-being and comfort within your own body notably, are extremely valuable. Most people, even the best scientists, feel before they think, mr le STEM man.

We should just offer monetary incentives for intelligent and otherwise healthy people to procreate. No need to resort to violence when we can just do things peacefully. I'm not sure why your first thought was to jump to that conclusion...

>People like blue eyes, they make songs and write poems about it. Same way with being tall, being red haired, anything. I don't think people would be happy in a colourless society of nearly identical clones, especially if they have access to books from the past.
Obviously the logical solution is to sterilize all the romantics, poets, and musicians, so eventually only logical persons like me will be around to appreciate the improvement in health.

No need of "purging" "dummies", just value learning and effort over TV and mediocrity, while offering to everyone a quality education.

As for the people who really don't want/can't do well in Academic fields, I think we should also value manual expertise and craftsmanship. With the advance of robotics, I'm fairly certain there will be a huge demand of "man-made" products, for the sake of going against the trend.

What's wrong with altering the human race in a significant way ? It's simply touching our very identity as humans. Gene trafficking should be minimal, and never at the cost of human biodiversity.

If you're not memeing, it's yet another exhibit for the case of forcing stem students (especially engineers) to take basic philosophy and epistemology

I can make an opposing argument by taking the reverse: There are insects and rodents with poor vision but I don't see any insect's and rodents posting on Veeky Forums, they are just dumb fucking insects and rodents. On the other note, birds particularly crows / raven tend to show much greater intellect than rodents with poorer eyesight.

And again I agree that more information requires more processing power but again I'll make the same claim, we aren't turing machines as our architecture is different. Moreover, neural networks aren't some magical technology, they are still turning machines that only try to model how our brains work.

Literally comparing Apples and Oranges

Hawk eyes are pretty gud

Again, if that is your opinion that's fine but clearly there is no point in arguing with you any furather.

Not the guy you responded to in the first place (and I think his case was rather tedious), but it makes more sense comparing Neanderthal and Homo sapiens, rather than rodents and birds. You're comparing two subspecies on the one hand, and two different species, even two different families, on the other hand.

But I love philosophy. Marcus Aurelius and Kant are my favorite philosophers of all time. Doesn't mean I have to just fall in line with all the older philosophers though. I think it's kind of narrow-minded that you assume I'm not literate in the hummanities just because my ideas are a bit radical.

>claims to like Kant
>says he want to kill/sterilise artists

Hey, I said I like Kant, not that I worship him. I just admire his autistic dedication to creating an internally consistent and logical system of ethics. He was a pioneer.

Sure, that's why I mentioned "anymore". What's the point these days, taking in the account opportunity cost of doing some other genetic modifications?

people in the north have whither skin because we have less sun
we need the sun to produce vitamin D
black people living in the north are prone to vitamin D deficency

but you cant qurantee that we will get vitamin D pills in the future

Its because there is more snow in the north. THere is a lot of and in the desert and mid eastern people are tan. You see? Make sense

This.Also, same with the U.S. Don't let the white majority fool you. The original native American people who lived in what is now the United states evolved dark skin. It all about the sunlight bruh.

>Intelligence

Only "mutation" that matters.
More of a societal mutation because scientists aren't allowed to prove race traits exist.

See: If you want to reproduce using r selection and overwhelm a population by sheer numbers when not culled.

What if you are intelligent but not able bodied? A brain in a vat that can only imagine but can't communicate is not too useful.

True but Vitamin D can be obtained by being in the sun. Alternatively, Vitamin D can be obtained from fruits and vegetable just like how other animals get it its fat soluble so you don't need very large quantities of it unlike Vitamin C because it will stay in the body for a very long time.

Isn't that literally ALL of evolution? The only reason we're here in the form we're here in is that the traits we got were random mutations that proved to be beneficial.

Wear clothes you stupid nog?

What the fuck are your sources? Vitamin D is fat soluble you fucking idiot.

That's what I said in my post. It's fat soluble. Did you misread?

Sure but you get fucked over in northern- low sun climates too.

Doubt it.
Otherwise you'd see a bigger population of Violet eyed people right?

this

> There must be a reason blue eyes and white skin still exists in the world

blacks have more genetic diversity so there are likely to be albino mutations that eventually able to adapt to environments, hence why European "whites" are a minority and why white people have higher chance of having retarded kids because white people have less genetic diversity. Blacks can breed a white kid but whites cannot breed a black kid.

>Dark skin (less chance of skin cancer)

Save in colder climates, then higher chance of D3 deficiencies and a host of subsequent issues.

>It could well be that blue eyes and pale skin were simply selected for due to aesthetic reasons.

Pale skin doesn't hide skin disorders as easily, so there is a clear benefit to seeking out paler skinned people on that basis. It may very well be one of the reasons we find it aesthetically pleasing.

wrong.

the innuits survived, yet they arent white or blue eyed.

its highly likeyly that white people are albinos that have adapted.

Small size is not better if you live in a cold environment, large bodies retain more heat because of their higher mass to surface ratio.

> 8 people responded to this

...

>being a beta cuck

>Otherwise you'd see a bigger population of Violet eyed people right?
No, not right. Evolution is a function of selection AND chance, so just because humans found blue eyes attractive does not mean violet eyes would become common as well, as it could be that violet eyes have a much lower chance of becoming fixed due to biochemical reasons.

Most visual processing happens in the retina anyway.

Dark skin as similar rates of skin cancer

Hi Zach