Why the government does not invest in creating highly effective humans, so as to be able to dispense with the population that contributes nothing to the society?
Why the government does not invest in creating highly effective humans...
Carter Green
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Adrian Ramirez
Because eugenics is wildly unpopular, never mind expensive as fuck. Did you even think for a second before you posted this?
Hudson Jones
because highly effective humans would be highly effective and seizing power. Low IQ populations are easier to rule.
Brody Ortiz
Because that isn't ethical.
Luis Bailey
No such formula exists to optimize for "effectiveness" in any population. Effectiveness is too broad to pin on to a particular Gene set.
Thomas Lee
>government does x i want
Brainlet wish.
Mason Lewis
>Because eugenics is wildly unpopular, never mind expensive as fuck. Did you even think for a second before you posted this?
the entire european revolution and feudal system can be viewed as a eugenic project. executing 1.6% if your male population for 30 generations is pretty damned effective at reducing anti-social behavior.
the chinese had a feudal period that obviously had similar effects, imperial japan had an explicit eugenic program up until the mid-90s. as ruthless as it was, no doubt it had a positive impact.
richard lynn did some napkin math showing the possibility of a 200 iq in 6 generations of embryo selection. the chinese are currently combining this with crispr. if they're willing to accelerate puberty in their guinea pigs, its 55-70 years to a han master race. that's assuming their high iq guinea pigs are unable to help improve the process along the way, which you'd expect.
so all told, i'd guess 35-50 years until gattaca, then something something wrath of khan
Zachary Bennett
> (OP)
>No such formula exists to optimize for "effectiveness" in any population. Effectiveness is too broad to pin on to a particular Gene set.
g is about 80% heritable in 1st world populations. general intelligence is general, ie BROADLY applicable. the fact that the technology to select for iq already exists and is in use both suggest that your wrong.
Lucas Mitchell
>no doubt it had a positive impact.
sure now all the chinese pee pees are as small as my pinky
Brayden Gray
Except iq is not science, user.