Eugenics-Do it`s principles work in theory?

Eugenics-Do it`s principles work in theory?

Whenever i try to look up Eugenics i get some "evil Nazis" and "black genocide" or "muh increase of class difference". But somehow i never come across the argument that Eugenics do not work.

So if society threw away all moral objections would Eugenics work and if, how much could it possibly improve the average human?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_dogs_in_Moscow
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Eugenics is just artificial selection applied to humans

It could work if we had good knowledge of human genetics + a benevolent government unmarred by corruption and ideological agendas.

I am but a simple Eastern European brainlet but that is how i explain it to others. But it offends them and they go on 3 different rants:
1. It would not work on us 2. Intelligence does not matter 3. the gene pool would not be diverse enough

I do not wish to get into politics but would you say that under the current system the opposite of Eugenics though not planned is happening?

1 - it would, just see breed selection in other animals

2 - it does matter, but IQ is not a perfect way to measure it, but still the best tool to measure intelligence that we have

3 - there are 7 billion people on this planet, so... no, it would still be diverse enough

Yes, are you dumb? Even The Economist published a article that a study in UK show that dumb people are being selected, and having more kids.

We have been breeding dogs for intelligence for tens of thousands of years. They're still dumb.

>see breed selection in other animals
Enjoy your genetic disorders from too much interbreeding.

>best tool to measure intelligence that we have
It is about as good as a measuring tape that stretches when you pull. Terrible!

>there are 7 billion people on this planet
>implying eugenicists would use anything but their own people

>Enjoy your genetic disorders from too much interbreeding.

See i don`t get that. The current world population is HUGE compared to that of the past. Are you implying that people of the past were mostly retarded unhealthy inbreds?

I heard that as long as the population is larger than 10.000 there is no severe issue of inbreeding

Still at least dozens of millions of people should be enough

So why are our governments not trying to stop the dumbing of population?

People of the past weren't selectively and systematically bred by human hand. If you want a specific trait you must breed for it.

Why not just create a virus that replaces the reproductive DNA of the world with better stuff?

>Enjoy your genetic disorders

I would still argue that intelligence is worth more than health to some degree.

Tell that to autism.

Zeigest, the current cultural and social worldview of majority of people wouldn't allow to start eugenics, and basides, people wouldn't like the idea of some gov offical pop up in their house saying that there are too dumb and lazy to be allow to reproduce.

Isn˙t autism mostly caused by people having children way too late?

>they are dumb because I say so
Hmm...

Objective metrics would be necessary to judge who is "worthy" and who isn't. How would worthiness be decided? By an criterion or an human?
There are obvious flaws with humans deciding (biases, personal preferences or hidden interests etc.), but there are also flaws with an objective criterion.

For example, consider reward-driven artificial intelligence in video games like starcraft. The artifical intelligence would get rewards depending on how it performed in a game, with the highest reward being winning, and then learn depending on those rewards (initially it would act randomly). But this approach learned too slowly (only when a game was won, which would rarely happen by chance), and even if it learned something, it would not know HOW it won, just THAT it won, and thus generally assume ALL actions it took in the game were good (or vice versa for losing). Thus people decided to make it learn faster by adding other rewards for actions generally beneficial to winning the game, like mining or creating units. The result would be that instead of not learning anything at all, the AIs would start mine and create units for the sake of mining and creating units. And do nothing else.
This is still an open problem - people have not been able to devise a reward structure which would lead AIs to learn winning the game

An objective criterion would be like that: A reward for those who fulfill it and no reward for everyone else. It would lead to a population which is very good at one thing (fulfilling the criterion) and likely very bad at most other things which were not taking into account when designing the criterion.

Think about it: Humans cannot even mathematically describe what is a good approach to win in Starcraft, a game with a single clear goal (killing the enemy) - but they are supposed to devise an objective measurement about "who is worthy to live and procreate" at something AS COMPLEX AS LIFE?

People who are truly dumb are not foward thinking enough to care about that.

You give them 50.000$ to become infertile at the age of 18. We would get the money from not having to give welfare to their future children.

>We would get the money from not having to give welfare to their future children.
>We would get the money by taking money from the future
I know who's going to get eugenic'd

>"who is worthy to live and procreate" at something AS COMPLEX AS LIFE?

We could at least draw the line at repeating criminal offenders, and people who are borderline retarded.

People worthy of procreation should hold stable jobs and have savings thus showing us that they are capable of taking care of their child.

>people who are borderline retarded.
And we're back at the 2nd line here - who decides whether someone is borderline retarded?

I have no desire to produce an offspring.

I merely said that paying them would prove to be an investment which would have a return in the near future.

Who decides that someone is too mentally deficient to be allowed to drive a car? Humans do.

The system that prevents retards from operating a vehicle is not perfect but we are sure glad it exists.

Dumb, that is incurious, unquestioning, and ignorant, people are much easier to rule.

You realize Eugenics are inherently based on subjectives, right? You can't pick who's "most goodest" without subjectivism.

If you want to see an example of Eugenics in action, google "ugliest dog breed" and look at all the stupid shit we made, then compare it to what normal dogs look like.

To be fair, all dogs were created by eugenics, but one could argue that dogs are already a step down from wolves

genetics offends scum with whom no one wants to breed

No such thing as a "step down" in biology. They are perfectly adapted to their environment (living and working with humans).

The fundamental problem with eugenics is how do you decide who gets to call the shots. Who are you granting that power to, and how do they maintain power? How do you stop extremely self-interested people from coopting the system to pursue their own interests at the expense of the larger group?

>No such thing as a "step down" in biology. They are perfectly adapted to their environment (living and working with humans).
That's a pretty short-sighted world view.

There ARE steps down, but you don't see them because most of them have died (individuals) or gone extinct (species).

At last I finally see.

Yeah, okay, but dogs as a group are doing pretty well. Nothing that survives and thrives (I'd wager there are way more dogs than wolves today) can be considered a step down.

It's infeasibly difficult for a species with generation times as long as humans. Furthermore, the wide variance in characteristics within the offspring of even a single couple (exactly how similar are you to your siblings?) and extreme impact of developmental environment make pinning down the relative frequency and strength of desirable characteristics to any rigorous standard nigh impossible - to say nothing of humans' extreme lack of docility when restricted in the manner necessary to carry out this work.

If you had absolute power over a completely willing populace for a thousand years then maybe you'd have the glimmer of a chance (and even then you'd have a glut of severe genetic disorders to contend with, which would probably wipe out whatever meagre gains you might make), meanwhile wielding those same powers to provide a stable and enriching development for dozens of generations of children would yield vastly greater returns.

I wouldn't call it unfeasible. Think about the slave trade, for instance. I think there have to be some significant differences between the black people now in the US (or the Americas in general) and the ones in Africa. The selection pressure must have been enormous, and imposed partly by man, not nature.

But of course, no one in their right mind would study such a thing today, or they'll have him hanging in the city square.

Or actually, more appropriately, burning at stake.

The only difference is admixture.

People don't know what kind of genetics actually is better, or what better is

>10% death rate on crossing the ocean
>rebellion meant death
>not being physically fit for labor meant death
I highly doubt it is only admixture.

It might be a good idea in ideal circumstances, but can your real-life government be trusted with the power to control reproduction? Can future governments 5, 10, 50 years down the line be trusted with that power?

Very little food or fresh water was provided on slave ships to the human cargo.
About 15% of the cargo expired during the voyage.
The North American, slaves brought to what would become the original colonies, slave trade began in 1619 when the first boatload of African Indentured Servants arrived in the English colony of Jamestown.
In the beginning of the Colonial slave trade, it took up to 6 months to make the voyage, by the end of the slave trade to the then United States, the trip took 6 weeks.
In all 425-450 thousand Africans were transported to the colonies that became the United States, by the time that the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1801.
With little to eat or drink, survival depended on several factors, those who were overweight survived, as they were able to exist off of stored fat, those that could retain water also survived, these two factors, among others, has led to their modern decendants having a naturally selected propensity to high blood pressure and obesity.
Most modern American-Africans have 15-25% of their ancestry originating form Europe, most AA prefer to believe they have a percentage of Indigenous North American DNA, testing shows all most all do not.
So the majority of the 35 million American-Africans living in the United States are the decendants of, at most, the 450,000 original slaves.
400 years.
20 generations.
Average population increase of 90,000 per year.
Small original breeding stock.
Original stock not being the best, they were after all conquered by other Africans, enslaved and sold to either Portuguese, English, French or Spanish Slavers.
Lots of inbreeding, many smaller stock owners would breed father's and daughters, mother's with sons, sisters with brothers and even grandchildren with grandparents.
They were largely treated as stock animals.
Not breed for intelligence, but bred for size and strength, just like draft animals.

No back breeding done to improve the current line.

Unfortunate.

>Enjoy your genetic disorders from too much interbreeding.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
Compare that with populations of single countries alone, not even mentioning racial or continental populations. Basically in such scale inbreeding is a invalid argument. You see inbreeding in for example dogs because breeding centers are much less numerous, people care heavily on certain traits and pure blood, and looking for mating material takes lot of effort, money and it often includes moving long distances just to see dogs fucking. There are probably just thousands of dogs in breeding centers while single countries have millions of citizens. Racial or even national segregation is not an issue, and with such massive pool of subjects logistics and economy behind it are bigger problem than inbreeding.

Um, Eugenics is how we domesticated animals. It really is't complicated. You really can just select phenotypes you like and it will mostly work out.

>Enjoy your genetic disorders from too much interbreeding.
I just want to read about science and I keep running into vile anti-semitism.

the nazis planned it out pretty well and it functioned for the short time such laws that promoted eugenics were implemented. spartans did it, it seems to have worked for them too.

>how much could it possibly improve the average human
who knows but i bet we'd have huge dicks

>a benevolent government unmarred by corruption and ideological agendas.
Enter: China
They will jump on all the technology the West has labeled unethical. It will become an arms race and we'll be forced to follow.

As a Swede I can't see how moral fagging over the inferior sub-species would do us any good at this point >:)

Obviously we're beter off without the negroes and sand goatfuckers so why do we still pay millions to support them sitting on their asses and breed like the r/selected subhumans that they are and yet they still have the audacity to spike our crime rates at all time highs.


Actually as a proud Gen Z I can assure the Boomers and Gen X'ers are first to be gassed for their degenerate self loathing "tolerancy" of the obvious invaders that have just about nothing in fucking common with the European ideal of culture and polity.

Nah, don't do eugenics, instead do gene therapy if you want to create a true übermensch

If the goal was to completely eliminate "undesirable" people, it'd be impossible. Recessive deleterious alleles tend to take >10,000 yrs to phase out given our long life spans.

Good post.

It doesn't work because it typically selects for one trait. Traits don't exist in a vacuum - they are intimately linked with each other in abstract non-linear ways. You cannot just select for one trait and expect that trait to be exacerbated and others left alone. Look at this thread on /an/ about selective breeding abominations

...

...

It certainly works with plants and animals. The problems with applying it to humans would be social, not biological.

...

Jews have diseases because of inbreeding

The Romans selected for small dicks.

At least I'm not an ugly mothefucker

Society only stands to benefit from it

And greatly so

A lot harder, more impractical.
Your inbreeding argument doesn't make sense. If we look at Europe alone, European populations isolated from the rest of the world has enough diversity to breed forever without the nasty effects of inbreeding.

They only work well with Human help. They're a 'step down' because without a Human hand, they're close to potential extinction.

Eugenics is a silly method for attempting to create a designer baby, if you are gonna be using eugenics it is far better to just take a child and genetically modify it instead.

In eugenics you end up with one of two situations creating criterion for the addition or removal of a person from the breeding population A. sociological/psychological traits like shyness or propensity towards religion and B. Physiological traits like genetic diseases or myostatin deficiency to increase muscle growth.

Problems with A.
We do not have any real idea what causes these traits to manifest on a psychological level. More so we don't have the ability to determine how the interplay affects other traits, for example Alan Turing was forcibly sterilized by the British government after finding out he was gay. Now assuming by some miracle the gay is removed from the population, however no one realized that the brilliance Turing exhibited was reliant on the traits that also led to him being gay. More so it can result in the exact opposite effect where potentially functional people that without the removed traits grow disadvantageous to the population leading to a clusterfuck of breeding control that removes more and more traits that we won't even notice until it is too late. The reverse is also true, breeding for intelligence causing a huge amount of mental disorders to be bred into the population because they were directly linked to the intelligent people.

B.
Simple ones, losing the ability to protect against certain diseases due to the removal of disabilities such as sickle cell anemia. If malaria mutates and becomes stronger the major immunity, being heterozygous for sickle cell, no longer exists. The same issues of above also apply to this one meaning that, except for a handful of genes (maybe), we can't predict the long term effects or the complex interplay of traits.

Mix this all in with standard meiotic recombination and the chaos inherent in Eugenics ruins it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_dogs_in_Moscow
Dogs are actually pretty good at surviving and doing shit. Purebreds are definitely a step down but mutts are generally very smart and physically capable.

Lots of weak replies ITT

Eugenics is a very broad term, and some forms of it are actually moral, just read the Old Testament.
That being said, eugenics is already used by society via women's dating preferences. Women choose their partner, and they always try to date "up". This is eugenics, plain and simple.
Another example of (immoral) eugenics working in society is in Iceland where they aborted babies with trisomy 21.
Just because you wanna get autistically stuck in the brush over tiny irrelevant details doesn't mean the rest of us have to go down with you.

>eugenics is just subjective maaaaaan
Lmao, STEM is full of spineless cretins that just can't accept the truth.

Depends entirely on the breed and the circumstance. But as a rule, Domestic animals are no very well acquainted with undomesticated life relative to the former.
Mutts outperforming Purebreds?
Well I suppose if the mutt was selectively bred to acquire multiple traits from various breeds, so as to benefit them. And thus Eugenics..