Why don't you support eugenics?

Why don't you support eugenics?

Attached: B3-BL251_EUGENI_P_20180816133408.jpg (749x499, 60K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf
scholar.harvard.edu/files/aghion/files/social_origins_and_iq_of_inventors.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I do

yeah its the sensible thing to do.


we have to act like we dont but it's for the future of mankind.

I have hope for Mars.

I recognize we are going to be in deep shit population wise pretty soon, but eugenics is selfish and short sighted. All actual attempts have also been pretty junky science-wise.
Also where does it stop?

Dumb people are easier to exploit.

Who the fuck is Eugene?

Eugenics doesn't make sense science wise, there will be low IQ poor people as long as there are poor people with low developed brains.
The future is not biological perfection, is going beyond our biological forms and their inherent limitations.

So dying then?

This...junky science

Eugenics is already happening. Intelligent and/or responsible people have no or fewer kids, or at the very least, stop having kids when they can't afford to have more, Stupid and/or irresponsible people keep having kids even when said kids would die if not for the support of the intelligent/responsible people and the society they created.

Just by restricting people who can't feed their own kids to one kid would do wonders to stop humanities downward trend.

Except that poor people can have brilliant kids. You aren’t informed enough about this.

Also besides having a heavy population, I would be curious to know what you think of as “a downward trend”.

The first Mars colony will be wiped out in a catastrophic accident because they will be more concerned about "representation" than having qualified people.

Yes they do. Unfortunately their middle class peers are hearing millions of more words in early childhood, boosting their cognitive function. Plus they don’t have to watch their dads beat the shit out of their mothers.

This...is such a stupid thing to say...

With no natural predators, its the only way for humanity to advance.

Short people can have tall children, but its exceedingly unlikely. Likewise, IQ has a high inheritability quotient, as seen in studies of twins and the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, that proved that adopted black children had roughly the same IQs as their biological parents and were divorced from their adoptive parents and siblings in spite of being given the same food, going to the same schools, and being raised by the same parents.

Those dont have to be setbacks

And that means nothing in the long run. You are dismissing a legion of histories great writers, thinkers, scientists, inventors, artists, etc. sometimes early childhood struggles build the kind of character that always beats privilege.

But humanity is in fact advancing. E.g. since women start having children later and later, we see a trend that they stay fertile for longer (as the ones capable of doing so have more children). Same thing with tolerating toxic chemicals or sedentary lifestyles.

It may not be what you imagine to be "evolved", but we are adapting.

Ah so you are judging the value of life based on IQ? That’s...unfortunate

because it's not science

cus i have a better idea

forced sterilization at birth and you apply for a parenting licence to get it undone as an adult

Attached: 78296036_894203164308851_3668631996180987904_n.jpg (360x640, 55K)

Sounds like something a low IQ mongoloid would say. Humanity's defining characteristic over other species, and in fact other hominids is our intelligence.

And you are mixing apples and oranges. Nowhere did I say poor people can't be intelligent and/or responsible. But these things have a high correlation with genetics. For example, a poor black teen gets herself in trouble and has a kid. This in itself doesn't negate the possibility of still being intelligent and/or responsible. if she is she finishes her schooling and emphasizes the importance of education to her child while trying to better her situation. If she isn't intelligent or responsible she spends the next decade having 8 more kids with 5 different fathers. Now even if you don't believe in any genetic component to intelligence, just culturally, which woman's children will grow up to be responsible people? The one or the nine? Even if, of the nine, 2 manage to beat both nature & nature we have on 1 hand 1 positive and on the other hand 2 positive and 7 negative (along with just the overall negative of 1 vs 9 more to the contribution to population). Which is better for society and world in general?

Iq is not a reliable gauge of intelligence. You sound brilliant and very well read.

Creating more people who do not consider other people or the survival of their planet as important as them creating more people.

Because it doesn't work as intended. Dog breeds are an example.

Well, first we should try to minimize the effects of the socio-economic factors you're talking about, because it will skew our understanding of actual genetic effects, leading to ineffective eugenic programs.

E.g. you might want to select for whites-only for now, as they have the highest IQ, but it could be that latinos have the right genes, but they always get behind in education?

That's very false. IQ is reliable and reproducible, and correlates highly with success in life. Everything else is you hating smart people.

Education has very little to do with IQ. Although its important for very young minds to be challenged or it can lead to an IQ deficit, schooling isn't actually necessary for that. Two people of equal raw intelligence, or IQ, can have completely different skillsets, such as a surgeon versus a master mechanic.

This is important because a low IQ couple is likely to have a low IQ child, and no amount of education can make up for a great deficiency in raw intelligence, and this genetic deficiency is in perpetuity so of great consequence.

Who the fuck cares about the planet? We won't be stuck here for more than 100-200 years, so it doesn't really matter.

What you’re arguing for isn’t eugenics though. What you’re arguing for veers past eugenics on the amorality scale, so well done there.

>picturing the offspring of /b's selection pgm

Really? NASA contracts work out -> disaster 3 killed. Does work in house with qualified people -> even with freak accident astronauts returned safely. NASA starts being concerned about checking off boxes -> loose 2 shuttles

You’re classifying a very specific type of learning and understanding as “smart” and the success portion of your argument is just wrong.

OP is a Nazi moron and has no idea about genetics (the real science of inherited physical traits and phenotypes). You could have an Einstein-level genius born to a family that was poor and destitute for generations... Just because genes can be expressed differently over several generations. Try to stay away from sharp and pointy objects. You might get hurt...

IQ is specifically created as a scientific method to objectively measure intelligence.

What scientific metric do you believe is superior?

Ah thank you. A person who reads. This is the correct answer

That's not true at all dumbass. Iq is the most accurate gauge for intelligence we have. There's a strong correlation between high iq and success. YOU don't know. If you had an IQ of 80 or lower, you would have difficulty comprehending basic fucking english. So before you go espousing so bullshit know your god damn facts first.

If it's so objective, how come some lowerIQ folk outdo higher IQ folk?

>the success portion of your argument is just wrong
ORLY?
gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf
I wouldn't call .5 correlation "just wrong".

How do you measure intelligence scientifically? Reading comprehension? Basic fact retention? It’s not so cut and dry. A brilliant surgeon will look pretty stupid trying to build a house.

Outdo them how?

Those occupations are outliers. We need well adjusted, reasonably intelligent people to keep things running.

Attached: E53E8618-CD8B-46D0-AF4F-B6279223509F.jpg (800x600, 133K)

I do, very much so.

Nvm, you clearly aren't paying attention.

Not about to waste my words.

You’re so right, who needs scientists or theorists. Jesus Christ

I agree completely. In last post I was granting extra cultural influence for sake of argument. Also I emphasis responsibility because a low IQ person can still know the proper path to take while having greater challenges to take it.

Nah. The way this works is that they come up with a shitton of questions, and ask them from another shitton of people. Then they look at which questions correlate to each-other (i.e. if one scores high in question A, they will score high in question B). Then they take a look at the groups and correlate them to previous testsets, and maybe other stuff (like economic status, education, etc). Turns out, IQ just comes up as a metric naturally.

But you'd need to know statistics to understand this, which I know you don't so meh.

whev

Name a study that shows low IQ people out preform high IQ people. A single study with a reputable background. On OVERWHELMING average high IQ out preform people low IQ people. I will concede, however, there is a cut off. At a certain level a high IQ can slightly impede your success. Maybe because the way you think is fundamentally different and can make relating to other difficult.

Iq testing measures a very specific type/understanding of intelligence.

It's mostly because it's not only IQ that correlates to success, but the ability to work hard. It's just that most high-IQ people never learn to do that and suck later in life.

Why dont all inventions belong to the guys with an iq of 170 or over?

It, by definition, measures intelligence. All the other "EQ" and similar nonsense is quackery. IQ is the only reliable one.

Why do most people with over 170 IQ die broke and penniless?

yeah you're right, we need dumb niggers to hang, if they're all replaced by smart ones. They're harder to catch and slip out of your hands easily

Lol, higher IQ people invent more:
scholar.harvard.edu/files/aghion/files/social_origins_and_iq_of_inventors.pdf

Remember, correlation does not mean "always", and "every".

Nice hyperbole there. Did I say anything about killing? Did I even say anything about abortion? Where is the amorality, the fact that I used 2 black woman in my example and that triggered your knee-jerk liberalism? In any pre-1920 or thereabouts society of the 9 kids in the same but unsupported situation, 7 of them would not reach adulthood. If society is doing the moral thing and not letting children starve in the streets, doesn't society also have the right to say you can't keep cranking out kids you can't support?

We really should eliminate all godtards and process them into dog food. But only feed them to dumb dogs. Smart dogs deserve better food.

Attached: 4CC0F7A8-7879-467D-9C6E-971980A04ADD.jpg (720x720, 113K)

That wasnt the proposition

I thought it our ability to sympathize more so than any other species to the point of having an entire field of study for the ethical treatment of all species.

A correct answer to something that was never stated by OP.

because the answer to the original proposition is "correlation doesn't work like that".

Ooo you got me. Dang you're so smart user. This is not sarcasm at all.
I'll answer your question with another question because there's something you're not considering here; how come hot jupiters form close to their stars rather than farther out like our gas giants?

I have been saying this for years.

Neither does high IQ equals intelligence

Smart people can be retarded too

Yeah, you're a real great addition to society...

Just kys already

>IQ has a high inheritable quotient
So should I tell them you have no clue what you are talking about or will you?
Heritability is not a real thing. One gene might behave a certain way in one environment but act completely opposite in another. It's the environment that determines almost all things, like behavior and physical characteristics. And to add to this, you have to account for prenatal environment which is the most likely reason the twins had lower IQs. High stress in a mother to be makes it harder for the offspring to cope with stressful situations themselves which negatively effects IQ. Do some fucking homework before spouting you pseudo science.

IQ by definition equals to intelligence. Retarded people can not be smart by definition. What's so difficult in this?

t. retard

Attached: 8DF022B8-62C7-4036-8AF8-78F1B999F8E4.jpg (550x543, 83K)

So who would you feel comfortable enough to give that level of power and how would you ensure those people stayed those people who got to make this choice?

Guess they weren't smart enough to get an actual job

That's retarded.

Shame I cant prove it to you though

You realize there are doctors who are too retarded to use word and excel right? Some of them cant even remember their passwords.

There's also retards who know more about life than you do. Ie troll harder faggot

I do since a long time.

Attached: 1571953832265.png (742x742, 326K)

Someone number this image so we can roll already.

That's called Dysgenics®, moron.

Private eugenics are habbening in Xina and Nippon, see crispr© babies.

Perkele.

you just don't have anything to back up your statement.

Yep, you got me. Just an idiot troll

Now move along please.

I do.... but I also think humans are profoundly stupid so yeah we are going to fuck some shit up but in the end it doesn't matter because if we fuck up and wipe ourselves out it will all start over again without us and the universe will not even know it happened.

No I would say that's its you that has no clue as to what you're talking about. Environment (including prenatal) has great impact but mainly in the negative direction. Genetics is the limiting factor. I'll use piano playing as an example. A person inherits the qualities that enable them to be a virtuoso player. If they never get exposed to a piano or can't afford lessons as a child that potential is lost. Now a highly motivated person without the inherited piano player advantages who practices constantly can overcome this "lack" and still become a great piano player but they will never be as good as someone with the inherited "virtuoso" advantages who is equally motivated and practiced. Your thinking is the product of over 50 years of scientific bias that desperately want to confirm the "you can be anything if want it bad enough" mythology. I use the example of Greenough of how a researcher can do everything correct methodologically and still come to the wrong conclusion because of preconceived notions.

Technically you're correct dickhead but I saw no point in throwing in another term that's essentially just the flipside of the same concept

From what I read they failed on creating intended effects and they have no real clue as to what effects if any their manipulations actually caused. That's why I'm actually against genetic manipulation of humans because we have no idea what might be important long term.

Like were going to Mars anytime soon...