Eugenics

Question: Why stop at killing the disabled and preventing other races to breed? Why not stop anyone with under 130 IQ from breeeding?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vZUJ7PZ8f74
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Current_tests
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because that's not "socially" acceptable

Real life isn't DBZ.

Too risky from an emotional standpoint. If you're white and your wife is wife, you're guaranteed to have white kids (inb4 Tyrone). If you have an IQ > 130 there's still a good chance your kids won't.

Then the vast majority of the eugenicists would die.

What we need is a zombie apocalypse
The weak will die and become zombies
The strong will die and become zombies

Because people with IQ of 100-129 would be smart enough and so high in number to form a rebellion and fuck you up

Because natural selection (or even human directed selection) cannot overcome genetic entropy. The arrow is not up. It has always been down. All life on earth is degrading and will soon become extinct:

youtube.com/watch?v=vZUJ7PZ8f74

the world will always need ditch diggers and mechanics my friend

Because high IQ correlates with mental illness spaz.

Enjoy your masterrace of autists and freaks.

I support eugenics

the opposition is party social, partly anti-authoritarian, partly theological

there are practical ways we can advance the human race, better future generations and protect our gene pool

the objectors are mainly spergs who think they have a god-given right to pass on their shitty genes

the reality is that the bar would become higher in successive generations, but at the same time the average member of the population would be no further from that line

>Why not stop anyone with under 130 IQ from breeeding?

Because replacement rates work across generations as well as for specific breeding pairs. The question is whether, long-term, a single breeding pair with IQs over 130 can produce enough children with IQs over 130, who in turn produce grandchildren with IQs over 130, etc.

As people with IQs over 130 represent only about 2.25% of the population, it's doubtful this could occur even given the general heritability of intelligence.

Of course, there's also the issue of IQ scales functioning as a normal distribution of the population, such that, assuming this plan works as intended and those with lower IQs slowly die out, the scale adjusts to drop the IQ score of the remaining (more intelligent) population.

>there's still a good chance your kids won't
Citation needed

>implying we have sufficient understanding of genetics
>implying we know better than nature

Only 5% of us have IQs over 130. The lower IQs outnumber us, and control the government (and it numerous gunmen). We can't stop those below 130, there are too many of them. However, if we make the cutoff 110, we can do it. At that point, we will be outnumbered by only 3 to 1, and our innate superiority will allow us to win against 3 to 1 numbers.

while 130 is a high bar, there is no reason we couldn't start at 100
shit even 90 would be a start

we let people with IQ's less than 60 reproduce, people with parkinsons, other crippling hereditary disorders

Because IQ is a percentile scale, killing off the dumb people just makes you proportionally dumber.

It's also a rough estimate of academic intelligence, which overall does not mean you are creating a healthy gene pool by removing lesser IQ individuals.

Then evolution could not have happened. Because it involved lower complexity becoming higher complexity. Your theory is creationism, which posits that God created everything in a state of perfection, which has been degrading since creation. Suck my dick, dumbass.

Eugenics is a dead end. It will never solve the rates of genetic entropy, even with the strictest selection. There are fundamental deficiencies with current models of how evolution (or forced evolution) works.
youtube.com/watch?v=vZUJ7PZ8f74

I believe we have a sufficient understanding of enetics to undertake in the more basic forms of eugenics

and I believe that we will never learn more about genetics if we arn't allowed to study and let I say it experiment with genetics

>implying we know better than nature
see that, that right there is the kind of stupid we don't need in our gene pool
"nature" has no consciousness, natural selection is a blind function that has no aim

that's right, nature fundamentally has no intent
it doesn't try to preserve the ecosystems, to protect people, it has no concern for welfare

so yes, I think we can do better than nature
like how we domesticated animals to feed outselves
like how we bio-engineer plants to have trace nutrients

we have to make nature work for us, we have to be both the sculptor and the marble

No, I am simply going where the evidence leads. Please evaluate the evidence presented in the video and compare it with your assumptions about evolution. Evolution's primary axiom is unraveling among-st top population geneticists. There has to be another explanation. I mean, watch the video and tell me what you think. I am the first to admit that I don't know everything about the answer but this is not a "creation" argument.

you can post that shit as much as you like

nobody listens to that quack
he's a known inteligent design theorist, and I believe even a young earth theorist

he's just a priest who plays dress up as a scientist

darwanism killed his way of thinking a hunderd years ago, and nobody but bible bashers look back

It's not a paradigm question that can in any way "prove God." That is not the point of the lecture. It is simply presenting compelling evidence that the theory of evolution needs to be majorly revised based on cutting edge population genetics models and the evidence we are finding about today.

>while 130 is a high bar, there is no reason we couldn't start at 100

As I said, IQ functions as a normal distribution of the population. It would be as if, to improve performance in your company, you decided to fire all of the below-average employees. After you sack the first group, employees who were previously above-average become below-average, because you changed the composition of the workforce.

Our haphazard knowledge of genetics aside doesn't the eugenics argument deserve a fair crack? All we have really are outright dismissal based on beliefs as to why it wouldn't work (and a bunch of intellectual cowards and nitwits too frightened to even consider it because once long ago some really mean people espoused it), and a bunch of people equally blindly professing it would work.

Do we not, if we are an intelligent species as we claim to be, have a moral obligation to actually test the eugenics hypothesis? Would it not be worthwhile to conceive and execute a controlled multigenerational breeding experiment? Even if it doesn't work think of the things we would learn from that experiment. In the throes of such potential it seems folly NOT to engage in the experiment.

He is the most accomplished and famous population geneticist on earth. I mean, the guy pioneered the DNA gun for plant genetic engineering. Have you just tried to be unbiased like all true scientists should be, and heard his evidence? I mean your paradigm must be open for revision without bringing religion into it, when compelling evidence shows something new. Otherwise you are betraying the fundamental basis for the scientific method. You are not practicing science at that point.

We need more time... More time to learn the qualities of our genes and how they work with different combinations. I rarely get attracted to anyone.. But when I do, its very intense. I'd say five to ten in a hundred women of reproductional age is fit for me. Does it mean that I'm already better than most thus I can't get attracted to most of the women because ite would be degrading to my genes..?

because pussy libtards whine and complain saying muh human rights. You shouldnt kill disabled anyway, let them do desk jobs (but if they are retarded use them as cannon fodder lel).

Also, he is basing the lecture on the explosion of information we know about biology. It is not "100 years old." It is 2016 evidence and it's a trade secret of every population geneticist. Every population geneticist understands this dilemma with Evolution. He is not reflecting a minority opinion in the field. His opinion is the majority. Just put your bias aside and see what he has to say. It is interesting regardless of your believe or non-belief in a "creator."

Your blind faith in a field in which you clearly have little knowledge is frankly disturbing.

Of course nature has no consciousness or end goal. The point is that genetic diversity is essential to a species. By culling large portions of the population you are losing genetics that may contain essential keys to future disease. It also may not, but you have no way of knowing what traits will be important in the future.

You are also ignoring the fact the IQ is merely a rough measure of intelligence. Yes, it correlates reasonably well to some general measure of success, but it is hardly a crystal ball into the future of an individual. It is also far from being 100% genetic. Heritability is less than 0.5. Environment plays at least as great a factor in your IQ as genetics. We are also only just beginning to scratch the surface of epigenetics.

I understand that using a relative measure of intelligence would indeed mean that the raw IQ would indeed be driven up with each successive generation

...but that is literally the whole point

by throwing out the bottom % of the population (by any measure/s) our gene pool would improve by that measure/s

the only hard part is picking really good measures to select by

>Why not stop anyone with under 130 IQ from breeeding?

Two reasons:

1. It's totally unrealistic to believe that you can stop any segment of the population from breeding.

2. People with IQ's over 130 tend to be less social. Humans would die out if you were actually able to overcome problem #1.

As a person who probably should be breeding but isn't, I can self-confirm the above. The hard truth is, people are getting more stupid in general, while an intellectual elite gets progressively smarter - if one defines "smart" as taking steps to control the world.

We are well on our way to a genuine technocratic society - not a meritocracy, mind you, but a mutated form of meritocracy in which those who control the information control the population.

This segment of the population doesn't have to be large. They have no reason to breed heavily and even if and when they do breed, their numbers are not part of your statistics. They are separated from the proletariat by armies, police forces, private security, and impenetrable walls.

We currently call them the 1%. But in fact, they are more like the .0001%.

>Do we not, if we are an intelligent species as we claim to be, have a moral obligation to actually test the eugenics hypothesis?

What moral principle creates this duty?

Eugenics gives you the British Isles.

IQ increases with practice and changes from day to day, and hour to hour.

Immune systems are more important to evolution than anything else, but people with weak immune systems instinctively fear other tribes for fear of symptomless carriers and become racists. When women go 'eeew racist' they are instinctively rejecting a weak genetic specimen.

Good genes doesn't always mean smart.

We still need grunts to do labor.

Evolution cannot account for the genetic cost of adaptation which is genomic deterioration. Timofeeff-Ressovsky (1940) and Muller (1950) hypothesized that mutations with inconspicuous effects are more frequent than lethal mutations. Muller (1950) warned that mildly deleterious mutations may be accumulating in... show more

For example, a high genomic rate of deleterious mutations can make it difficult to explain how humans, a species with a relatively low reproductive potential, are able to persist (Crow 1970).

It has been estimated that there are as many as 100 new mutations in the genome of each individual human. If even a small fraction of these mutations are deleterious and removed by selection, it is difficult to explain how human populations could have survived. Walker (1999)

These papers are written by atheists who acknowledge the problem with Eugenics. We have known about it since the 1950s and it is overwhelmingly clear with the modern understanding of biological information. Eugenics is a dead end. Watch the video and learn something.

youtube.com/watch?v=vZUJ7PZ8f74

120 iq, can i live?

Evolution cannot account for the genetic cost of adaptation which is genomic deterioration. Timofeeff-Ressovsky (1940) and Muller (1950) hypothesized that mutations with inconspicuous effects are more frequent than lethal mutations. Muller (1950) warned that mildly deleterious mutations may be accumulating in modern human populations, because natural selection has been relaxed by better environmental conditions. He also warned that mutation accumulation will be paid for by genetic deaths in future generations, unless improved environmental conditions can be sustained. This argument has been reiterated, with attempts to predict the rate of mutational degradation, assuming that natural selection in current human populations is substantially reduced (Crow 1997, 2000; Lynch et al. 1999; Eyre-Walker et al. 2006; Lynch 2010).

Recent genomic projects have revealed the existence of an unexpectedly large amount of deleterious variability in the human genome. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain such an apparently high mutational load. Garcia-Alonso L (2014)

It has been estimated that there are as many as 100 new mutations in the genome of each individual human. If even a small fraction of these mutations are deleterious and removed by selection, it is difficult to explain how human populations could have survived.
Update: For example, a high genomic rate of deleterious mutations can make it difficult to explain how humans, a species with a relatively low reproductive potential, are able to persist (Crow 1970).

It has been estimated that there are as many as 100 new mutations in the genome of each individual human. If even a small fraction of these mutations are deleterious and removed by selection, it is difficult to explain how human populations could have survived. Walker (1999)

These papers are written by atheists who acknowledge the problem with Eugenics.
youtube.com/watch?v=vZUJ7PZ8f74

>Citation needed
Citation needed.

haha what you say sounds scintific, but there is an enormous dissonance between what you advocate and what you actually believe

clearly the man is very clever, but being a plant gene expert doesn't mean you are an expert in evolution

>hurr durr our gene pool is deteriorating
>therefore we can't have evolved

it's half baked and didn't stand up to peer review, I'm no expert on the subject but I don't think he is either
what he is saying is akin to "this ice cube is melting, therefore it is getting warmer, therefore it must never have been cold enough to make an ice cube the normal way"

he drew this flawed belief, and came to the conclusion god must be responsible because he couldn't see another way

through history there have always been two kinds of scientists
ones who admitted "I/we don't know yet"
and the ones who reverted to "clearly it was god since this makes no sense"

I have read dawin, and darwins arguments directly refure the ones made by this quack

>Of course, there's also the issue of IQ scales functioning as a normal distribution of the population, such that, assuming this plan works as intended and those with lower IQs slowly die out, the scale adjusts to drop the IQ score of the remaining (more intelligent) population.

i don't think that's how it works...

Veracity. Plain and simple.

We can't rightly claim intelligence, or knowledge for that matter, if we shy away from demonstrating it. At best we'd be hiding in a half-truth, "Yes it may do harm to the individuals involved so we avoid the chance also that it may do good for all, even them, and thus we are knowledgeable and wise." At worst we are outright lying to ourselves to the tune of "No there is no point it will fail (or succeed) and so we need not endeavour".

We must experiment, we must tamper, we must explore if we are to learn and be learned. Without that we have failed to be true to our claims of intelligence and knowledge.

i'm just hoping robots take over before the human race breeds itself into stupidity

He is well respected within the community. Peer review attack his faith, not the strength of his evidence. Your approach at argumentation betrays some pretty big challenges you will have in the future because you use fallacy. (At Hominem, appeal to authority, non sequitur). You also really don't have to be so caustic in your approach to regarding an opinion unlike your own. It is not only unnecessary, but reflects poorly on your character.

hey grats on that 222 999 by the way

Darwin had many fundamental deficiencies in his theory, mainly because the evidence for it didn't exist. If you are comparing the scientific understanding that Darwin presented 100 years ago to modern evidence, I am afraid you are living in the past. Modern informational sciences are pointing in a far different direction.

then the retarded future generations can live worry free

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Current_tests

>People with an IQ of 130 are expected to be satisfied with menial labour tasks
>The number of people who fall into the under 130 bracket number in the tens of millions
>Literally committing demographic suicide with this policy

Killing stupid people and the regular IQ people is actually a really stupid thing to do.
I would also suggest that killing the disabled is foolish, as it is not their fault. However, where possible, with the technology available, screening and aborting unborn retards seem a logical precaution.

All criminals that aren't in for life should have the choice of sterilization to cut their sentence by a small amount. It's a nice unobtrusive way of cleaning the gene pool slightly

>his opinion is the majority
kek think you may actually believe this

so you think it's a conspiracy, all the population geneticists won't speak out or just ignore fundamental flaws in their field

the chosen few see the light huh?
that's Scientology tier claims, and they are unsupported
nobody but church funded shills support his beliefs, and regardless fo who pays them their beliefs just don't stack up to more than wishfull thinking

it's not blind faith, I am reasonably well read
I'm just not an expert and I can admit that
the definition of blind faith is believing someone who claims to be an expert

it's a valid (though seperate) comment that using a narrow gene pool puts us at risk, because we don't know what the future will bring
it's an argument that appeared early on in designer babies, when parents were willing to loose %30 of a child genetic diversity to guarantee a specific eye colour

so caution is needed, but the issue is not fundimental
it's just about how cautious we have to be
>Environment plays at least as great a factor in your IQ as genetics
yea, see that is actually wrong
undoubtedly there is some bias in testing, or interferance from environmental factors
but %50? no way, the studies on this have been done time and time again, countless twin trials and broad population tracking

what you are saying is litteraly called "presentavism" or currency -bias
you are in effect saying darwin was wrong just because he said something a long time ago

modern science has solidifies theories darwin made even before he had the technical means to find proofs

he saw the evolution of birds on islands and identified the function even before he knew DNA was the moving part

Massively underrated post

that doesn't answer my question. why would iq scores drop? they would probably take on a higher mean if this psychopathic plan was carried out.

see: a brave new world

but can we really say criminality is bad for the population as a whole?
it might seem like an incredible idea, but criminality comes from many sources

even if criminals are bad, could we be sure their genes are bad as well

No, you don't understand, it's curved so 100 is the average.

criminals are, on average, low IQ people. yes there are some smart ones, but they are outliers.

ah, bait. i see.

>tfw 128 iq

This is not a moral argument. Please try again. Maybe spend the time to actually study ethics before you do so.

> tfw < 100

>I am reasonably well read
You clearly aren't if you aren't aware of how completely ludicrous it is to think we would even know where to begin in determining a policy of eugenics.

oh yeah cuz only people with low iq commit crimes.

a small number of high iq people have probably killed more than the entirety of those below them

also IQ is a shit way to measure real intelligence and creativity.

fucking Sup Forums filled with naive children these days.

because then it is significantly more difficult to find a woman.

Especially where I live.

There aren't enough menial labor jobs for those people as it is. And current policies aren't neutral towards IQ, they're encouraging people with low IQ to have more kids.

>herp derp i took an online IQ test a gazillion times till it gave me a high enough one, i must be smart

oh Sup Forums

just get with a sterilized stupid girl and donate sperm to a sperm bank. they will then use it to artifically inseminate a smart girl and produce intelligent offspring and u can still have a gf

This is why we need fascism

then it doesnt matter what the people think, we get these important tasks out of the way

>American poster
>ID: FAT

IQ tests are normalized to a median score of 100. If you start eliminating people below that median score, you raise the median score itself.

A person with an IQ score of 130 has a score of two standard deviations above the median. That person doesn't get smarter just because you change the median score of the population. So as the median score goes up that person's score decreases.

lol that doesnt work. kid could easily come out autistic or downs. low IQ people have also produced savants.

holy fuck Sup Forums....

kekked up and got a double triple

They survived on memes, namely religious.

>don't be gay
>don't be degenerate
>don't get divorced
>discipline your kids
>work will set you free

All eugenics comes down to is killing people because you think you're better than them. Obviously the standard will never, ever be set higher than the standard setters. Preferably there will be no risk of ever being in the excluded group, hence the tendency for racial and geographical exclusions. Eugenicists will claim it would make the world better, but it wouldn't because it would turn the world into a genocidal cesspit.
All you inbred cavemen and kids going through puberty out there might read this and think, "Well it could be used to lower crime rates and improve the economic standing of the state, etc, and feelings and morality don't matter." Those things aren't objectively good though. They are considered good because citizens of such a state feel good. That means recognizing that this is ultimately a question of making people feel good.
So the score for eugenics is
>Morally barbaric, tramples on dignity, liberty, and ethics
>Self-contradictory, pretends feelings don't matter in an attempt to improve your own feelings.

If you recognize you're only trying to help yourself at others expense and there's no other reason, it's not self-contradictory, but it still makes you a brute.

Tfw 129 iq from psychologist administered test :^(

The problem isn't low IQ people. It's people within the single deviation (85-115). Low IQ people are needed to do remedial jobs, while high IQ people are needed to lead. It's the middle ones who fuck everything up.

>know where to begin
I think it's pretty simple actually, and I'm sure there are people who would be much more able than myself

1. use national medical records to automatically trace population trends in ilness (almost univerally done anyway)
2. link those trends to individual family histories
3. provide this information to anyone within the family tree, this gives access to the medical records of the dead, and would help people become aware of cancers and general ilness they are likely to have
(this is rapidly becoming a thing already for cancers)
4. use this information to provide official warning for people about their genes, basically a "don't reproduce" letter

1. give everyone who required an assisted birth a mark on their record
2. any family with an unbroken line of assistd births could safely be assumed to be unable to survive in nature
3. factor this into the "do not breed" system

1. give free sterilizations out to people with downs syndrome

and those are onl measures that don't involve looking at DNA itself

Because then society would be incredibly liberal

If for no other reason, it wouldn't do diddly-squat to improve the human race in any statistically significant manner. None.

im sure youve done great things for humanity while shit posting in your parents basement.

you saying that preventing 99.9% of niggers from breeding wouldnt be a good thing?

I tried explaining it to three people already

some people seem to have trouble with statistics, math and science

a posible boon of eugenics, is that when we remove those people; the ones left will be more likely to understand :^)

>only 99.9%
It should be 100%, and if it was possible to go higher than that, I would recommend it.

>the human race

Im not a globalist. I think separation of the races BUT while all being under the American constitution and its protections would be a great utopia world

Because we need a dumb dominated working class to make the system going.

i see what you're saying then, but how is that a counterpoint? the numbers on the scale don't really matter. you could normalize iq to whatever number you wanted.

Elite overproduction is bad.

The ironic part is that while you're holding yourself above them, you'd be killed alongside them for the same reason they're killed.

Also, further exaggerating a hyperbole isn't funny.

A fair statement as I have no formal education in ethics. However I will ask then, for clarity, are you dismissing my previous post for not constituting a valid moral argument or are you stating that the issue at large is not party to moral argumentation?


And more (should the latter statement be true) if the morality of the argument for eugenics is then set aside as irrelevant (because it is not a moral argument) then there is even less reason not to attempt a eugenics experiment, yes? As moral objections the experiment are not relevant (at least not relevant in the whole, treatment of the individuals involved should of course abide by some standard). Provided a research institution could acquire the consent of a group of family units willing to subject themselves to the study (while acknowledging the option for their progeny to opt out) wuld it not be at least worth while?

>preventing from breeding = killing
Do you speak English?

>further exaggerating a hyperbole isn't funny
Sorry, mister user sir. If you give me a list of what you find funny, I'll make sure to let everyone know since you're so important.

>morality

Youre basically arbitrarily defining eugenics as immoral. In a sense protecting society by sterilizing retards could be viewed as good. Because of muh feelz cucks like you we live in the sick society we live in right now where trannies, retards and mentally ill people are encouraged.

Mechanics are skilled workers moron.

>tfw Sup Forums is now where great minds meet

college obsolete

Honestly mate, it's looking like the population of earth idls going to need a mass culling sometime with this century anyways.

You can't have 14 billion niggers taking welfare and only a few million intelligent whites supporting them.

Either society is eugenic or diseugenic. It can't be neutral.

College has been obsolete for quite some time, friend. I'm in a tech college and I have a genuine retard and low functioning autist in my class. Not to mention the moron Normie's.

while "culling" is not an acceptable solution, this might be a real concern in a few generations.

I already addressed this because I knew kids would say "haha muh feelz don't matter lmao feelings are irrelevant I'm so logical!"

"Society" is going to exist whether or not there are blacks, gays, jews, or retards like you. But let's say it wouldn't. Why is society good? Why is a high functioning society good? Why is a low crime rate good? Why is wealth good? Or comfort?

I'm not going to argue about whether or not morality is arbitrary, I don't think it is, but I'm not going to argue it because it doesn't matter. Every reason you have to support eugenics is based off your feelings and comfort or the feelings and comfort of citizens in a eugenic state. For you to dismiss feelings as irrelevant dismisses any reason for eugenics.

morons breed like rabbits and you all know it. most smart people are smart enough to only have a few kids.

>why is a low crime rate good?
Oh, I see now. You're an honest to God retard.

Only let the top 16% smartest men breed
Only let the top 80% of women breed

This gives you the ideal 80/20 ratio and encourages men to work hard for breeding rights rather than the current system in which 20% of men are getting 80% of the sex anyway.