I think eugenics is a great idea that was put down because "muh evil white men in the 30's did it." But we could eliminate diseases and make more intelligent, strong and beautiful people in just a few hundred years.
All of the food you eat has been selectively bred for its best qualities. Pic related look how shitty corn was before we domesticated it.
I'm tired of going out on the street and seeing le 56% face everywhere. These fucking fatasses live on welfare and ride their mobility scooters to Tim Horton's. I hardly ever used to see them but they started popping up everywhere in the last 15 years or so. Imagine what humanity is going to look like in 200 years!
Recently, our government has considered rolling out a universal basic income (UBI) plan. It would replace welfare and disability. Basically you can be a NEET for as long as you want with $1,200 a month or so to live on, and you don't need to look for work or be disabled. This is going to cause the gene pool to become extremely muddied. We should give people welfare- we should give a lot of welfare to beautiful and healthy people just so they can raise children, then we should send their children to the best of schools. Meanwhile ugly and sick degenerates would have to be sterilized permanently to get UBI. Naturally our politically correct government will ever even entertain this notion, but it's just a thought.
>best qualities Totally subjective. Inductive reasoning a shit. Read some Popper and gas thine self thou faggot.
Lucas Anderson
Agreed.
Zachary Reyes
...
Hudson Sullivan
You don't even know what inductive reasoning is, 52%
Parker Edwards
Wrong. There are measurably superior qualities in people. Strength, speed, intelligence, and resistance to disease, just to name a few. Only a pozzed retard would deny that some things are better than others.
Wyatt Diaz
It is the white man whonhas the biggest penis in the world no one can claim otherwise
Luke Lewis
"Totally subjective"
Nolan Cook
Its really not tho. >Totally subjective Implying that being retarded, short winded and ugly can, in some ones eyes, be pure.
Alexander Gutierrez
I'm a geneticist. The issue with eugenics is that pour understanding of the nuances of the genome are not thorough enough to be able to predict every possible outcome.
With crops, the problem of a detrimental mutation gone wild is remedied by making the plant sterile. We can't do that with people, which may lead to an entire population being affected by a mutation somewhere down the line as people breed.
Charles King
>We can't do that with people
Why not?
Parker Ortiz
Because you would have to make them sterile. What's the point of living if you're sterile?
Adrian Gonzalez
Like I said, give universal basic income in exchange for sterilization. There is actually a charity that does in the United States. They will pay drug fiends to get sterilized. Poor people don't plan to have children, it's always an accident for them. Plenty of people will be happy about not having the risk, and they can just take their NEETbux and get drunk and fuck like animals. It seems compassionate to me and not a human rights violation.
Meanwhile, find people with no family history of any serious illness, people that are beautiful, athletic and intelligent, and pay them to get married and have kids. Their children will become scholars, industry leaders, military commanders, politicians, etc. Eventually they will form an upper caste of society.
At least that's my dream, but it could never happen with our current political climate. I don't see anything actually wrong with it in principal though. As our understanding of genes increases our program could be modified accordingly, but you can tell someone has good genes just by looking at them. I think in 400 years a eugenics program would have a great payoff and be worth the effort.
Dylan Morales
Why not engineer people instead of restricting someone's freedom to reproduce?
Ryder Peterson
I think OP is talking more about negative eugenics. Trying to eliminate crippling, disabling, genetic diseases. Most people would agree with not bringing more of that particular disease into the world.
The Jews have actually very successfully been doing this with some bad Jew genes for decades now, via DNA testing before marriage.
Benjamin Harris
Eugenics is a combination of two Greek words meaning ‘good’ and ‘genes.’ The vision of “Eugenics,” a term coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton - cousin of Charles Darwin - is to create a superior and a flourishing human race, devoid of all genetic imperfections and hereditary diseases, by eliminating defective people.
Eugenics posits an increase of ‘socially good genes’ by eliminating the proliferation of ‘bad genes’ within a given gene pool. Briefly, positive eugenics advocates marriages among fit people and negative eugenics limits procreation through sterilization and euthanasia.
Eugenics destroys our society by disgracing those with hereditary diseases and other abnormal medical conditions to a status of being ‘defective.’ When a ‘defect’ is identified, elimination of the subject carrying that defect gains greater priority than healing of that defect. This is the damaging service caused by eugenics to our society.
In contrast, the Bible alludes to people with defects as sick and needy. The Bible also terms all human beings as sinners – with an innate propensity to sin. Some sinners, such as serial killers or rapists, violate their victims rather irreparably whereas others, in comparison, commit sins that do not violate others.
Liam Torres
Whatever the case may be, the Bible offers a cure for both the sick and the sinner. The cure is in God and HIS Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, so that those who believe in Christ will be healed of their infirmities and delivered from their sins.
Eugenics endorses:
a. Forced sterilizations of defective people (between 1934-1939, 350,000 defective people were sterilized).
b. Killing the hospitalized (In 1934, Adolf Hitler’s national euthanasia programme was aimed to free up 800,000 beds for war causalities).
c. Promoting abortion to kill defective children (Margaret Sanger, a proponent of eugenics and a founder of “Planned Parenthood,” is probably America’s largest cause for abortion at almost a million abortions per year).1
d. Infanticide on defective children i.e. Stephen Hawking should have been killed.
e. Killing people with diseases or other abnormal medical conditions (e.g. those who are disease prone e.g. Ludwig Van Beethoven, and the one billion obese people should be killed).
Luke Campbell
One need not be an astrophysicist to affirm the evil of killing. Similarly, any average human being can understand the similarity between forced sterilizations and rape – both violate a person’s sanctity, and hence are evil.
If this be the case, why are we discussing eugenics? Shouldn’t eugenics have been eliminated from our dictionary?
Whether we like it or not, eugenics raises its ugly hood under the guise of scientific advancement. Thus eugenicists posit cleansing of the society of its innate defects through eugenic sterilization, which is achieved by the alteration of the genetic basis of societal defects such as poverty and criminality.
Eugenics manifests in various guises. If you wonder whether forced or illegal sterilizations happen today, then prepare to be shocked. 150 female inmates were illegally sterilized in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation between 2006-2010.2 At least 8 women died after undergoing government sponsored sterilization procedures in India, which was conducted to curtail overpopulation. These women were paid a measly $23 to have the surgery.3
Xavier Jones
The purpose of this short essay is to induce a Christian response to eugenics. I have offered my response to eugenics and you can formulate yours. Christians should either endorse or oppose eugenics, there is no middle ground. Having said this, eugenics has infiltrated into Christianity, for quite a few christian leaders support eugenics.
What does the Bible have to say about eugenics? In other words, would Christ have supported eugenics? No, not by any stretch of imagination.
The Bible does not warrant its believers to either kill or violate anyone’s sanctity. Historic Christianity is all about loving, healing and saving people who believe in Christ.
The Bible reveals a sovereign God who creates and determines the length of man’s life. As a sovereign creator, God alone has the power to take life off this earth. This is an entailment of God’s sovereignty.
But man is neither sovereign nor can he create life. Therefore, man, through the science of eugenics, cannot usurp God to determine who lives and who not. Nothing, not even science, provides man the authority to unjustly eliminate life.
The Bible does not discriminate people (cf. Matthew 22: 39; Galatians 3: 28), but eugenics judges and discriminates people based on their social fitness. Eugenics promotes the fit and eliminates the unfit. Life that God creates is precious in HIS sight (1 Peter 2: 4) and God is impartial (2 Chronicles 19: 7) to both the fit and the unfit.
Elijah Ross
God heals the sick. Although in certain instances, HE does not heal all the sick, but unlike eugenics, HE offers strength to those HE does not heal, to live through their sickness. God does not eliminate defective people.
God does not kill the sick to promote a flourishing human society devoid of all imperfections. Instead, God offers the imperfect man a means to eternally coexist with HIM – the only pure and perfect being, through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that those who believe in Christ will be saved.
The Bible mandates care for the needy (Exodus 22: 21-23). We ought to care for the needy so to uplift them and enable them to live a better life. Nowhere does the Bible state that the sick and the needy ought to be killed so to construct a flourishing human society.
The Lord Jesus Christ was a friend of sinners and downtrodden (Matthew 11: 19, 25: 34-36). In fact, Christ condemned those who ignored the needy (Matthew 25: 41-43). So the needy are not a burden upon our society; rather the needy ought to be cared and provided for.
Nolan Long
Thus far we have refuted negative eugenics. Positive eugenics is no better.
Positive eugenics advocates marriage between fit people (man and a woman). So, two ‘non-defective’ people (free from all abnormal medical conditions) should get married.
Even among non-defective people, a man with high IQ ought to marry a woman with high IQ. This is the compatibility proposed by positive eugenics.
Are not grace, love, trust, sacrifice, humility, compassion necessary for the success and longevity of the marriage, than high IQ? High IQ does not necessarily presuppose grace, love, trust, sacrifice, humility, and compassion.
What if two christians, one with high IQ and the other with low IQ, but both loving the Lord dearly and possessing grace, love, trust, sacrifice, humility, compassion in growing measure, decide to get married? This couple will most likely enjoy a long and a prosperous marriage than the couple with high IQ and less grace, love, trust, sacrifice, humility, compassion.
Christians should oppose eugenics for it violates human sanctity and denigrates the weak. Instead we should love the weak and help them to live a better life and lead them to the Lord Jesus who alone can save and deliver them.
Dominic Williams
>Christian >High IQ Pick one
Gabriel Hernandez
But you could get rid of color blindness, disease, blood disorders, balding. FUCKING BALDING! Image a world with hair you insensitive shit.
Jack Ramirez
Agreed. Finally I see an eugenicist who isn't morally stuck in the 30's and doesn't want to sterilize anyone by force.We should rather give tax cuts and financial support for housing for healthy people if they decide to have children; the more kids, the more money. If someone decides to have kids and wants to get money, they would have to undergo a medical examination to find out if they carry any genetical defects (e.g Huntington's disease). Also UBI for voluntary sterilization of people with poor abilities is a fucking brilliant idea, it would get them out of the gene pool in a few generations. Sad it will never happen tho
Camden Hall
Yea, but Jews are objectively ugly so their standard of beauty would be put in place because they hold the power.
Eli Wood
Abortion, immigration and genetic counciling means eugenics is in full swing. There will be two races. A paler (but still mixed race) master race that is probably eurasian with a high IQ. There will also be a darker race that may or may not be slaves but that will do all the menial labor. Probably less white and Asians in it. Maybe an even mix of all races.
Isaiah Fisher
You sound like a crazy person or a good troll. Will not take you seriously/10.
Hunter Campbell
ok. considering that a large part of the population of any country, would not pass any eugenic breeding test, as in the ones used to breed animals. how do you expect to make the population be ok with it? Not trolling, just asking about practical implications. You would have to sterylise the unwanted groups. Then you would have to breed the wanted ones. And normal breeding would not do. You would more or less had to do the thing that is done with horses. Harvest eggs every month and implant in to brood mares, but have the geneticly superior egg producer never pregnant. This means children would have to be become the property of state. So lets say some women of the unbreedable class, could be acceptable surogates. So you have them, the good man and woman and against those. You have all the genetic defected or unwanted man, all the woman who are unwanted or too old or non suited to be surogates. I have a feeling that the second group would be much larger then the first one.
Evan Turner
You can access eugenics programs privately in every country in the world now. It's not forced sterilisation. It's selection and possibly modification of a fetus.
Jaxon Sanders
Oh and it costs money so the rich can be their very best when they reproduce and you can't. Lol.
Oliver Fisher
So we should be bred to feed aliens? That picture didn't really translate. The corn on the left is more likely to survive and thrive in the wild.... Genetic diversity is good for a species... Wtf...
Adrian Thompson
>Totally subjective Ayyy.
Samuel Richardson
How long have you been living in the wild?
Ayden Bailey
The one on the left is Eastern Gamma Grass, one of my favorites. Thanks op
Ayden Baker
Mariusz gets it It's a good idea but the question should be how do you do it, as we are above corn and horses
See the failed eugenics experiment lebensborn in Nazi Germany
Kayden Martinez
Yes but your new breed of humans will likely be vulnerable to other diseases.
You can't win really.
Michael Cox
>Pic related look how shitty corn was before we domesticated it.
Just stop. Who is "we". It took over a thousand years to domesticate corn.
Christopher Parker
That doesn't make any sense at all. You are assuming that modern eugenics would be exactly like irresponsible dog breeding where their only concern was appearance.
Dominic Ward
One must make extraordinary efforts to avoid inbreeding depression through a suppressed/isolated breeding population
Dominic Martinez
You are also assuming that a modern eugenics program would involve selective breeding. It wouldn't.
Charles Powell
>That doesn't make any sense at all. You are assuming that modern eugenics would be exactly like irresponsible dog breeding where their only concern was appearance
But unpredictable things happen in nature. New diseases come along.
James White
It is quietly happening though, remember that all sperm banks only accept people with "ideal" qualities. Minimum height, bachelors degree, no histories of illness etc. If you want to, you can have a chad donor for your child already
Xavier Brown
That is unrelated to eugenics. Completely.
Aiden Garcia
but khazar milkers tho
Ian Scott
These yellow corn crops would get BTFO by the "subhuman" wild type corn in nature though. That's the thing about survival of the fittest, natural selection will always have a better influence than human selection. The corn on the left probably has shit fruit yield but because it's not wasting all the energy into one thing, it could be more efficient everywhere else that matters.
Same with people, you might try to use eugenics to justify white people but non-White people are just better are reproducing and surviving. You'd be keeping a doomed species on life support and will suffer in the long term.
Jayden Edwards
Modern eugenics would and is practice this way: 1) pre implantation genetic diagnosis. Before the woman is implanted with a fertilised egg, many eggs are fertilised. Let's assume it's a husband and wife and the woman carrying the child is the wife. These fertilised eggs are examined and the only the most desirable are implanted. This can be used to eliminated inherited disease as well as select for traits such as appearance. This is the "be the best you" method.
2) genetic modification of a fertilised egg. This is now old science and easily within our ability at a low price. A couple thousand dollars a per egg at most. There is no risk of unexpected consequences here since you can replace an undesirable gene with a desirable gene that is present in wild humans. We know how that will turn out. This is the genetically modified perfect human. All genes are naturally occurring so nature has tested them for us.
Making up new sequences and genes for a superior unnatural human is still some time in the future.
Cameron Allen
its known as the assembly rules. every trait/advantage costs another, equally unique trait -ie fast growth / long lived
Matthew King
>Imagine a world with hair So only you'd be gone then, cueball
Nathan Anderson
You are both uneducated 56%ers talking about things you know nothing about.
Justin Barnes
christfag genes need to be the first to go, I don't care what you believe in but when you start spouting this shite and trying to impede the good work of the people who actually matter it crosses a line
Isaac Nguyen
i rather disagree with this point of view anytime you lower diversity intentionally you run the risk of inbreeding depression. seemingly benign traits which may appear useless or outdated can be quite surprising
Ethan Hall
Yeah but you don't have a single clue what you are talking about. This is just your retarded opinion. Fuck off MUTT.
Chase Wood
right but we don't live in the wild and we don't want to be adapted for life in the wild. we want to be adapted for life in a prosperous civilised society, which means the set of traits that are valuable are different from the ones natural selection promotes in the wild.
Gabriel Anderson
CRISPR will finally allow for ethical eugenics (i.e: not using abortion or sterilization) and everybody will be able to have a perfect human being as a child. I just hope super bugs, climate change or the disappearing population of insects (-75% since the 80s) won't get us first.
Christian Scott
i do agree with this. wouldn't this be similar to solving mental health problems? unchecked religiousness is rather mental
Kevin Moore
No no unless you are mongrel or a nigger you are inbred. Haven't you been reading the thread??
Carson Bell
I've read your posts in this thread and you seem exceptionally stupid. Don't talk to me again.
Isaac Sanchez
> i happened to see op's pic of Eastern Gamma Grass >she looks familiar >stopped in for a visit >dropped some useful information
Meanwhile you are arguing what? that picking eye color in a lab is natural? please, enlighten us professor.
Wyatt Wilson
You don't like facts? You do seem to dislike me mocking MUTTs.
Gabriel Jenkins
You're full of shit. Stephen hawking was born normal and got laid a bunch as a young man. You should think whether your creator wants us to observe more of his majestic creation than we can right now. Can't really do that with our inferior meatbodies. To not ascend our flesh is sacrilege.
Jaxson Howard
You didn't drop any useful information. You spouted some nonsense that mutts tell each other to feel better.
>ayo if this wuz the wild and we wuz plants or dogz I would btfo whitey.
Bentley Anderson
user, we are creatures in "the wild" i do not agree with some of your terminology what i simply stated was basic Conservation Biology 101 material i think your argument is to plan good, healthy babies free from diseases, right?
Robert Myers
You CLEARLY don't know even the basics of modern eugenics because you keep returning to problems with badly planned selective breeding. Stop.
Luke Ross
what are the basics. i have read the thread, so how is pre-implantation genetic diagnosis not selective breeding?
>btw, all breeding is selective breeding in mammals
Evan Walker
That last corn on the right suits the farmers well, but it cannot live without being cultivated.
Too eusocial for me.
Camden Ramirez
Instead of reading my phone posts, why don't you look up what pre implantation genetic diagnosis is? It will be explained clearer, in more detail and with typos. I'm phone posting. Long paragraphs are a pain. It's very interesting. You won't be disappointed. It will change how you see the future of mankind.
That's only if you genuinely want to know of course.
Robert Green
Without typos of course. Lol
Jeremiah Ross
Transhumanism > eugenics
Zachary Barnes
Eugenics is a scientific idea that presumes a philosophical one can be answered scientifically. If eugenics can work, setting aside all moral qualms, there is still no way of determining the ideal goal of eugenics. There are an uncountable number of complexly related variables, but let's take just one in isolation. Should humans be taller than they are now? How much taller? How do you arrive at such a quantity? Health is relative, so once the population is X height, the ones at the bottom of the distribution will be relatively short, and the cycle is endless. It's idiotic.
Luke Collins
you can start with the obvious like all niggers
William Cooper
Eugenics paves the way for transhumaism. I don't see a way to plug a human brain into a computer without first increasing the suitability of the human brain for that process.
Brody Ortiz
Direct genetic engineering is a technological leap above eugenics, the latter is just the tried and true method; simple selective breeding used on just about every domesticated animal and farm plant ever. Once the programming language behind DNA is fully understood there will be basically no need for eugenics ever again.
You can have eugenics without forcing certain groups to not breed. Simply provide incentives (taxes, education, utilities, etc) to desirable couples and families to have more babies while not imposing any restrictions on everyone else. Of course, this assumes that there is no overwhelming welfare state that is supporting the so-called undesirables, which could be described as dysgenics anyway. I would call this method "soft eugenics" as opposed to the "hard" variety.
Benjamin Bailey
ill do some reading, haven't been in a population study for a while but as interesting as this appears, especially the HLA matching and Savior Siblings, i shall enlighten myself to some facts.
Adrian Jenkins
Let peopel decide for themselves. Create an even playing field with socialised health programs providing eugenics. Limited government intervention to stop people doing really retarded shit like deliberately making their children deaf.
Ian Adams
Savior siblings and HLA matching is only tangentially related to the application of pre implantation genetic diagnosis to eugenics.
Angel Adams
Make it easy: To receive government welfare payments you must be temporarily sterilized. Depo Provera - 1 single shot yields a 3 month effect which renders a woman unable to achieve pregnancy.
Those that chose to be productive and return to the work force can do so, those that want to amount to dog shit for their entire life would be culled over the course of a generation or two.
Adam Martinez
so both siblings must be planned to be part of that group of Savior Siblings? ie, you cannot create a savior for a non-planned older sibling
Brayden Martin
No I'm saying that is an application of pre implantation genetic diagnosis but it's hardly related to eugenics.
Thomas Taylor
That would be fascism and few would support it. Also the west suffers from a lack of children. That would worsen it.
Isaac Cox
>look how shitty corn was before "WE" domesticated it
Nah idiot. Those were native South American peoples who did that. White people are always trying to take credit for shit they didn't do
Mason Cook
so the argument is for the removal of known genetic retardations to reduce/remove diseases from the population? >the usa's panned parenthood is practicing socialized eugenics in minority neighborhoods >the broad use of the word Eugenics is not adequate, also brings out the christians with their pitchforks
Charles Fisher
Who will run the program?
What happens when (((they))) take control and limit breeding for the middle class? Decide to "end white supremacy" by increasing certain segments of the population? What happens when a fat sjw decides that the only way to end the patriarchy is to chemically castrate all straight males?
William Smith
HMM
Anthony Gray
We haven't got intelligence genes figured out out. It seems to be a complex interaction of a great many genes so we can't practice eugenics on the ghettos yet.
Alexander Barnes
Who gives a fuck you pozzed, jewified wigger?
Jose Lee
most "White" Americans descend from natives anyway.
>Pic related look how shitty corn was before we domesticated it. Leafs never did anything of note to corn >These fucking fatasses live on welfare and ride their mobility scooters to Tim Horton's. I hardly ever used to see them but they started popping up everywhere in the last 15 years or so. >Recently, our government has considered rolling out a universal basic income (UBI) plan. Prepare to see a lot more of them >Eugenics endorses: >a. Forced sterilizations of defective people (between 1934-1939, 350,000 defective people were sterilized). >b. Killing the hospitalized (In 1934, Adolf Hitler’s national euthanasia programme was aimed to free up 800,000 beds for war causalities). >c. Promoting abortion to kill defective children (Margaret Sanger, a proponent of eugenics and a founder of “Planned Parenthood,” is probably America’s largest cause for abortion at almost a million abortions per year).1 >d. Infanticide on defective children i.e. Stephen Hawking should have been killed. >e. Killing people with diseases or other abnormal medical conditions (e.g. those who are disease prone e.g. Ludwig Van Beethoven, and the one billion obese people should be killed). In Vito fertilization and genetic engineering or some more "natural" approach for designer babies may be the solution
Benjamin Smith
...
Justin Hill
Eugenics is the greatest humanitarian merit far above ending world hunger and wars
Nolan Cooper
agreed, once i started reading into the road mapping going on today, and with a decent understanding of the genetic possibilities, what I have learned is we can pretty much isolate chromosomal agitators but those monogenetic diseases must be tested for individually. Takeaway, know your family history and what concerns you before going foreward
Liam White
Christianity is the true religion and what is written in the New Testament is real. youtube.com/watch?v=IQmodO2quW0 youtube.com/watch?v=DiYQzOypD9o The videos are long, but they basically come down to this: 1. The chain of custody is sound, the story doesn't change over time. 2. There was stuff in the Bible that was later confirmed by archeology(places, people, chariots on the sea floor of the Red Sea (Moses parting the red sea), snakes used to have legs, etc.) 3. There are even non-believers' accounts of some stuff Jesus did, just from them you can know a lot about Jesus if you piece it all together. 4. The differences between gospels aren't a bad sign, because witnesses rarely agree on stuff. If every eyewitness would say the same thing, it would be very fishy and would mean they probably talked to each other at one point. 5. The apostles died without getting rich, getting a girlfriend or getting power, they all died horribly. There was no point in spreading Christianity if they didn't believe in it. Why would they risk their life if it wasn't true? Why would they risk their life if it was all forged? Why would Paul try to join this new small church? Also the only accounts of Romans getting Christians to change their faith was after the 1st century. No account of eyewitnesses ever changing their story.
I cant eat corn anymore specifically for the argument youre making. Kys, OP.
Jack Russell
This. We need to keep the average IQ high and prevent the niggerization of society if we want transhumanism to become a reality.
Nathaniel Baker
...
Jason Baker
Or just get your genome mapped.
Brandon Mitchell
sadly the western governments will outlaw this because. "Eugenics is raaaycyst" dere iz only wun rayz duh hyooman rayse
Meanwhile countries that do allow the technology will likely have a race of people with an average IQ of over 200(some would would like simple lives thus not reach their full potential thus lowering the aggregate)
I myself would have the egg and sperm descender for known "bad genes" if i could be sure it would increase the odds of a healthy intelligent human being.
There are alreday laws that will stop/ slow this.
Germany bans IVF for "Eugenic" reasons(Other reasons ok) Uk banns single men but NOT single women form hiring surrogate mothers
Easton Lewis
You can buy it right now and it's within the means of a middle class family. Also there is nothing to stop you going abroad to "conceive" your wonder child. It's not like they will examine your families genomes to find you out.
Oliver Jenkins
>A prosperous, civilized society
Like one where people spend half their life working and being stressed in traffic? One where they are so disconnected from nature they don't know where eggs come from?
Jordan Thomas
We are so fucking fucked when chinks come up with a way to do this on a large scale
Andrew Rogers
I know it's got to be a while, but how close are we to screening out genetic born diseases?
Levi Ortiz
The states really fucked themselves when W was elected and but a ban on stem cell research.
