I'm curious about eugenics

If your not in a rush then sure.

Start breeding for intelligence and longevity.

In a few hundred years you might see an improvement.

Genetic diversity prevents dangerous pandemics from specialized disease which target specific groups. Don't give an all door key to a virus. This will also kill flexibility genetic adaptation.

However, I do agree some specialized groups segregated from the main gene pool could make wonders, albeit in small numbers in preferences.

Why do people actually make this claim? I thought Veeky Forums was a smart board. We did this to dogs on purpose. People wanted these stupid shapes because they were quirky. Health was selected AGAINST. Bottleneck breeding =/= eugenics. Proper eugenics would just get rid of certain seriously undesireable traits. You actually need to be VERY inbred before it's a problem. "Inbreeding" never stopped the Japanese or Icelandic from living long lives and being incredibly healthy and beautiful. Actual inbreeding is what happens in Pakistan when someone marries their cousin for a couple generations.

Start by killing yourself OP...
You are of weak genetic stock.
Now don't get all caught in your FEELINGS or some sense that you have some RIGHT to live. Just kill yourself.

no be artificially selecting for certain traits we also selected for fitness-reducing traits as well
that's what happens, "bad" genes piggyback on "good" genes
That's why designer babies is the only way to do eugenics properly.
And I'm all for it. I welcome our new genetically augmented overlords.

Getting rid of genetic diversity is, in my opinion, the only major possible problem insofar as that certain disorders turn out to be beneficial in the face of some diseases. In the future we live in though, disorders like this tend more to be problems than anything else, because we have better cures for the diseases than literal disorders. Or because these disorders help us with problems that aren't realistic for the kind of modern population that would be capable of having a genetics program, ie. Cystic Fibrosis as a solution to Cholera. Besides, we already have a medically privatised eugenics program against CF in the West.

are you retarded?
>cystic fibrosis is a solution to cholera

nytimes.com/1994/10/07/us/clue-to-why-cystic-fibrosis-has-survived.html
Try a basic google search before you call someone a retard. I gave that example because my systems-bio prof gave a lecture on it the other week.

so it's like sickle cell carrier? you could have said that
because it sounded like you meant people with cystic fibrosis don't get cholera
if you have cystic fibrosis you have bigger problems than cholera
.
.
.
Retard

Oh no I'm retarded for assuming you could read between the lines :(

>implying you implied what you're implying you implied
therefore you're implicitly retarded

...

I agree. Designer babies are a much more elegant solution than brute-forcing "bad" genes out.

This logic is fundamentally flawed...

A lot of human genes are made to work with each other and many interact in less than obvious ways. For instance, long segments of DNA determine the entire architecture of chromosomes and how often certain genes get expressed. Getting rid of a deleterious gene and inserting a beneficial one can have unintended consequences such as changing the expression of other genes that may fuck up the phenotype more. In animals this outcome is sad in an experiment but not tragic given their lack of demonstrable sentience, but in humans it can be catastrophic -- you could doom a person to a lifetime of suffering. *cue mutated human saying "kiiilll mmeee" in a vat*

It's not a solution to cholera but it is an adaptation to it. CF heterozygotes don't die as often from diarrhea-associated diseases because of polymorphisms in the CFTR protein that help to thicken secretions and prevent dehydration. Simply google "heterozygote advantage" next time before making yourself look like a dumbshit.

The difference is that people are actually way more genetically uniform than other animals such as wolves, so inbreeding tends to be more disastrous for us. Molecular evidence shows that there was some event that happened in our history that reduced the human population to a point of near extinction and a lot of inbreeding happened during this time. It's crazy how much we can point out differences in other humans and develop hatred for them despite the fact that those differences are just the result of a small number-of-generation's worth of genetic drift in isolated breeding populations.

nice quads, dumbshit.

fuck you faggot
that's exactly what I got at with the reference to sickle cell
you're the retard that can't express your thoughts with words

smartshit*

fix'd after reading thread

Less diseased. We dont breed dogs with health as the absolute target. If we performed eugenics on humans the exact purpose would be eliminating genetic disease and improving resistance to acquired disease.

What if those healthy offspring happen to be very ugly?

>The difference is that people are actually way more genetically uniform than other animals such as wolves
newscientist.com/article/dn6730-wolves-genetic-diversity-worryingly-low/
I don't know what you're talking about. Everything I google seems to indicate the exact opposite. Moreover, humans have varying levels of different species we've bred in with in our genome, so I really don't know where this assertion of yours is coming from. Everything I've ever learned would indicate the exact opposite. There is much more genetic diversity in human beings than in most mammalian species.

>A lot of human genes are made to work with each other and many interact in less than obvious ways.
This is not human specific whatsoever. This is how all organisms of even moderate complexity work.

>Getting rid of a deleterious gene and inserting a beneficial one can have unintended consequences such as changing the expression of other genes that may fuck up the phenotype more. In animals this outcome is sad in an experiment but not tragic given their lack of demonstrable sentience, but in humans it can be catastrophic -- you could doom a person to a lifetime of suffering.
Yeah, this is why you let people suffer and/or do the testing in controlled environments. When OP says that we're too feely to do this, this is exactly what he's talking about. The Chinese government is literally working on this stuff for humans because they're not too feely.

>There is much more genetic diversity in human beings than in most mammalian species.
*Maybe not most, but plenty.

>newscientist.com/article/dn6730-wolves-genetic-diversity-worryingly-low/ this article is specifically about wolf genetic diversity in the US because Americunts are killing them all. The wolves that our ancestors selectively bred were incredibly diverse. You're right, there are a lot of mammals with lower genetic diversity than humans NOW (Cheetahs are a big one -- they're on the brink of annihilation because of it and breeding programs aren't working) because we're in the brink of the Anthropocene extinction event. I knew I'd nab a /pol/ Veeky Forumsops guy with this post.
Anyway, my point was that because inbreeding happened in the past its effects are amplified in human populations.

>Mah China!!!111!1!!
Yeah, why do you think the international community is so reluctant to let China in? There's an advantage to playing fair and that advantage is that the other kids don't stay away from you and leave you to burn ants with your magnifying glass during recess. Using trial-and-error methods to figure out how to best modify the human genome is morally repugnant and you better believe any country that does it will be sanctioned to shit. It's not about being "too feely," it's about being feely at all.

>Anyway, my point was that because inbreeding happened in the past its effects are amplified in human populations.
Seriously though, if you can find me sauce on this it would be highly appreciated. It goes against everything I've ever been taught in uni or read on the internet.

And no, I simply don't browse /pol/. I can't stand the place. Me disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm a /pol/tard.

>Using trial-and-error methods to figure out how to best modify the human genome is morally repugnant and you better believe any country that does it will be sanctioned to shit. It's not about being "too feely," it's about being feely at all.
Right, sure, but the question is about what could be accomplished without that moral repugnance. It's not a statement of morality to say that something could be accomplished without the sense of morality that you can't seem to work past in this argument. I simply don't share your moral perspective. We are not of the same culture.

If you went to uni (well depending on what you went for), you'd know that humanity had a population bottleneck in the past based on mtDNA. If you're really curious about it you can Google it. Many believe it was because of the Toba supervolcano, but that hypothesis has recently come under some scrutiny. The Holocene extinction is also accepted as fact in the scientific community. How a genetic bottleneck affects genetic diversity and the consequences of inbreeding should be pretty obvious and I respect your intelligence enough to explain it to you.

>blah blah blah morals and culture
Even looking at it pragmatically and being 100% "unfeely," the consequences of being isolated from the global community would almost certainly outweigh any benefit of eventually creating some human with a genetic predisposition to be "kind of better than other humans at a thing." Yeah, it's possible that maybe you'd create some human that's really good at running and that you might get him into the Olympics, but that doesn't really mean shit if he isn't even allowed to compete under your nation's flag and a win isn't guaranteed, especially if your country is so sanctioned that you can't properly feed him to realize his genetic potential. Even if he does win, congrats! You just made several generations of experimental humans suffer so you could have a guy who runs fast and win a medal while simultaneously making the entire world hate your country (I gave this example because this is one of the dumb things China is actually doing).

I know it's just wikipedia, but maybe you'll pardon that in the meantime:
>However, subsequent research, especially in the 2010s, appeared to refute both the climate argument and the genetic argument. Recent research shows the extent of climate change was much smaller than believed by proponents of the theory.[11] In addition, coalescence times for Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA have been revised to well above 100,000 years since 2011. Finally, such coalescence would not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Genetic material inherited exclusively from either father or mother can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.
There was a bottleneck at the time of Australopithecus and there was a severe one when Meso-Americans entered the continent (although there's new conjecture that disagrees with that, both from Pacific populations enterings the Americas to multiple waves of settlers coming across the Bering straight, not just one), but one after that is far from 'settled' science. It is true that humans have a lot less variation that most species, but it's not enough to call humans inbred. We are not so inbred that we run risk of killing ourselves in the future by getting rid of a small fraction of the population when through the act of war we've done so much worse. We may not be chimps, but we're no one near Cheetahs.

About the moral thing, I'm not trying to make super athletes. But we all know it would be nice to live in a world where people were on average a little bit smarter and a little bit more beautiful. These are subjective attributes, but we define the beauty of the world, because we're humans. We're the shepherds of our own destiny.

>Why can't we just get rid of people with a conscience and actually stir the scientific 'pot' a bit?

we cannot get rid of the people with a conscience, as humanity has a conscience.

I fucking hate this board, using genetics to solve social problems, you make me sick

>humanity has a conscience.
Obviously not the right kind of one for your utopic vision.

we would be able to achieve things like getting rid of Dementia and Alzheimer's, by being able to prevent people from breeding with the genes that enable Alzheimer's to happen later on in life.

would allow humans to age better mentally closest I could see tests like these being performed is on chimpanzees though, humans would never allow something like that to happen though because muh animal rights. personally I think we should be able to do whatever we want to animals in the name of science, I just don't think we should drive them to extinction that's all.

>People wanted these stupid shapes because they were quirky.
Bugmen and their handlers will do shit like this to people if they get the chance.

This is a good man.

There should be laws against it, then.

Eugenics has already been tried and debunked.

Give me the quick rundown

what about offering short term wealth to people in exchange for getting sterilized?

Remember how eunuchs used to be a high political rank in ancient and medieval China?

>attractiveness is a fitness characteristic
>thinking people won't select for their warped opinion of what's beautiful over other characteristics

It would look something like pic related.

why is the shitposting so great on this board

Becaue Veeky Forums is probably unironically one of the highest IQ boards.
Also I'm serious user

hot, we should start eugenics today!

Let people do stupid things. The idea that making sure people don’t do stupid things with new technologies is unironically the death of the human spirit.

You would have to inhibit the human desire for self fulfillment and freedom because just breeding someone doesn't turn them into an athlete, you gotta force it or it has to come out of the person
Its also just dumb because we don't really know what x genetic markers do in a child, some are easy to detect but intelligence is much more than just one Gene as well as athletic ability is more complex than just "get muscular"

Designer babies are better than selective breeding.

Nazi germany for the first 20 years, Mormons eel culture for the next few centuries. Orthodox Judaism for the next couple thousand. So basically you’d become what you mate.