Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 20:59:29 UTC No. 16065493

>>16065472
Easily. Free market genetic engineering. Parents will pay companies to make genetic therapies that increase their kids desirable traits.
Companies will now compete for parent's money by innovating ever better genetic therapies.

Bootstrapping occurs as parents pay companies to make better therapies. There are no moral flaws here, unless you claim the babies don't consent to the modifications, but the same is true for them being born.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:04:16 UTC No. 16065498

>>16065472
theoretically at some point humans should be able to edit out both "bad" genes(subject is whole can of worms) but also "bad" brain structures formed by objectively bad experiences. which makes sense imo. what and how much you take out that's another few years of debates.
this door has been open, in some forms. it's not about if, it's what and how much.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:08:37 UTC No. 16065502

>>16065472
Literally cuckoldry.
Normalize being a father figure but not the actual biological father of "your" kids. Idem for women, make it normal for them to get premium eggs from top women.
Its either that or being childless with the associated social problems or having worse copies of yourself (you plus new mutations you picked along the way)

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:11:05 UTC No. 16065504

>>16065498
>>16065493
Genetic therapy/engineering is a cope to avoid cuckoldry.
When you edit a baby, hes dont going to have your DNA. Your DNA includes everything that is bad about you.
Might as well get premium sperm and eggs and IVF a premium child into your horrendous wife's womb

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:12:05 UTC No. 16065506

>>16065472
Genetic testing of very early embryos by taking a sample of amniotic fluid, and abortion of defective ones.

A population of people with no genetic load is plenty improvement enough. The improvement in productivity and happiness would be through the roof. Vast industries of remediation: most medical therapies, special needs classes, welfare, criminal/legal system, would disappear.

Genetic modification, on the other hand, should be banned. There is no way to avoid the feedback loops that would lead to disasters.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:16:05 UTC No. 16065516

>>16065498
>what and how much you take out that's another few years of debates.
Leaving the door wide open to Talmudistry by evil groups of people with an agenda.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:18:55 UTC No. 16065519

>>16065498
>this door has been open, in some forms.
IVF, since the 70s

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:21:28 UTC No. 16065521

>>16065504
This "premium" child smells different from me, doesn't look or act anything like me, therefore there is much less of a chance that emotional bonding will occur. What a thoroughly kiked idea.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:23:22 UTC No. 16065522

>>16065504
if you replace the fuel pump and electric starter it's still your car, it's not a different car. but all this clearly depends on the extent of modifications. both on genetic material and also on brain networks

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:25:41 UTC No. 16065525

>>16065472
I'm sure that Chad and Stacey imagine they will be the vendors of "premium" seed. Trouble is, they are social constructs, not tried and tested archetypes. Our paleolithic ancestors weren't necessarily pretty people, they simply got along well enough to be a functional group.

Garrote at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:28:32 UTC No. 16065528

Yes, monetary incentives for high iq to procreate, for example.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:34:02 UTC No. 16065536

>>16065504
>When you edit a baby, hes dont going to have your DNA.
I will have replaced particular sub-par genes I had with improved ones. When my kid has kids, he will replace those genes with further improved ones, as by the time he has kids companies will have innovated even better therapies.
If I removed the gene that causes cystic fibrosis in a baby I'm not transforming that person into a distant cousin.
Best part is this process will increase the populations average intelligence which means the rate of innovation itself will increase.

>Might as well get premium sperm and eggs
Really sloppy way of doing things if all you're after is improved X trait. Not to mention you won't be innovating improved genetics, merely selecting for the best we currently have.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:13:44 UTC No. 16065831

>>16065472
Propaganda

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:36:21 UTC No. 16065846

>>16065472
Probably not. Back in the 1980s there was a group of business leaders who were raising funds to provide poor women in the ghetto with free sterilization surgery and a fat check for agreeing to not have children. It would have been completely voluntary but they believed enough ghetto women would accept the money to break the poverty cycle that came from people in the ghetto birthing the next generation of criminals and drags on social services.
(((Leslie Stahl))) did a hit piece on them, calling them and anyone who supported the project Nazis. Their support immediately dried up as no one wanted to be seen as being a Nazi. No one else has tried since then.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 02:40:02 UTC No. 16065920

>>16065472
Aren't sperm banks already a form of eugenics? They don't store schizo homeless guy sperm in there
>because we are in deep genetic shit THAT ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE CULLED ASAP.
Do we have any idea how much certain traits are affected by the environment? Suppose the populations iq is lowering (ignoring that the scores are normalized.) Do we know if this is because of harmful toxins like lead, or poor education, or poor nutrition, or lack of exercise, or over usage of technology, or some other factor? Until we have a much better understanding of genetics I don't think eugenics is going to work that well anyways

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 02:59:35 UTC No. 16065936

>>16065920
>over usage of technology
you are technology anon

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 04:23:11 UTC No. 16065988

>>16065521
>This "premium" child smells different from me, d
So does the "edited you" baby
>>16065522
>but all this clearly depends on the extent of modifications.
COPE
>>16065536
>I will have replaced particular sub-par genes I had with improved ones
SURE ITS JUST A COUPLE OF GENES (KID LOOKS NOTHING LIKE YOU)

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 04:26:03 UTC No. 16065991

>>16065472
this would've been removed years ago for being political
>>16065936
yeah, go find out where that gets you, fuckers

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 04:54:31 UTC No. 16066001

>>16065472
genetic engineering

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 05:01:21 UTC No. 16066004

>>16065920
> Do we know if this is because of harmful toxins like lead, or poor education, or poor nutrition, or lack of exercise, or over usage of technology,

Basically blaming everything on the environment.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 07:04:06 UTC No. 16066086

>>16065472
The core problem of eugenics is that you just can't select better than letting things happen.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 07:37:21 UTC No. 16066109

>>16065472
India will save us

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 08:01:19 UTC No. 16066115

we should make a fake global pandemic. After a couple years of forced euthanization of the elderly and infirm, release a "vaccine" thatmakes anyone with undesirable genes (Africans) infertile. Done in a generation.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 08:44:26 UTC No. 16066133

>>16066086
>letting things happen

No such thing.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 09:55:51 UTC No. 16066178

>>16066133
What do you mean?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 10:33:09 UTC No. 16066213

>>16066178
Culture, religion, politics, and peer pressure can influence reproduction. The following are all eugenics:

>banning or allowing paternity tests
>banning or allowing abortions
>financial incentives for having more or less children
>promotion of single or familial lifestyles

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 10:44:10 UTC No. 16066221

>>16066213
Then don't do those, if you think it's eugenics, or make it unbiased.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:37:57 UTC No. 16066771

>>16065472
Legalize abortion, up to birth, and even fund it if possible.
Genetic deadends will want to off their babies because they just want the dopamine of ejaculation.

And do the same with vasectomy and ligation. Fund them, and advertise them as "all the sex with none of the consequences", and in our decadent society, deadends will flock to get them. Normalize them.

Planned Parenthood is already working on way more than that anyways. Pick and choose from their strategies whatever you find humane.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:20:49 UTC No. 16066835

>>16065988
>>adopted "premium" child does not smell like me
>So does the "edited you" baby
I'm not the anon who advocates gene editing, but the anon who said it should be banned. I do think that all defective embryos should be aborted early. The ones that go to term would be unedited. So you get a perfect version of the parents. It would smell like me, look and behave more-or-less like me, but a bit taller, handsomer, smarter and healthier because the sub-clinical deleterious genes are absent. It's like having a lottery where you take out all the losing tickets, but you haven't changed the winning tickets.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:21:40 UTC No. 16066837

>>16065472

Yes. Gently encourage both men and women to have sex with people who meet qualifications. Instead of doing it for impulsive reasons, to get back at daddy, for fun, or "to make up for slavery". smdh.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:26:38 UTC No. 16066843

>>16066835
Let me clarify: Each deleterious gene I might carry corresponds to what is probably a good allele in my wife and vice versa. Of 100 random combinations of the two parents genes, a handful would have none (or at least, much fewer) of the deleterious genes in one or the other parent. By embryo testing you keep those combinations and discard the rest.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:28:25 UTC No. 16066845

>>16066771
what the fuck is up with that image, is that real?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:30:03 UTC No. 16066849

>>16066835
good enough, if it was indeed possible to predict what a kid will be like from some genetic profile
>>16066837
>Gently encourage both men and women to have sex with people who meet qualifications.
Beta bitch, you think you can impose your ideas by being gentle? What if people reject them? So much for being nice

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:30:40 UTC No. 16066851

>>16065988
You are pro-dysgenics. You are a strong contributor to the collapse of society.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:34:04 UTC No. 16066856

>>16066835
The eugenic effects of that process are unlikely to be strong enough to overpower the natural dysgenic selection pressures of a high complexity civilization. Mostly due to imperfect screening, and the fact that you have to choose from a small number of eggs/sperm, so are unlikely to use the absolute best gametes from the parents.

Genetic engineering is going to be necessary to prevent dysgenic collapse. Don't fear it as everyone consents.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:36:05 UTC No. 16066859

>>16066849
>you can impose your ideas
Free market eugenics via genetic engineering >>16065493 solves this problem completely: People will voluntarily use treatments once they see people who have had them experiencing increase success. No different from technology spreading, monkey see monkey do.

Blame Hillary at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:36:10 UTC No. 16066860

Never forget

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:37:33 UTC No. 16066865

>>16066851
>>16066856
The society is collapaing because of the ill advised food regulations, not "dysgenics".

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:38:38 UTC No. 16066866

>>16066860
hame blillary

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:42:22 UTC No. 16066877

>>16065472
Yes, and we're currently doing it. Prenatal genetic scanning is quite common and the parents often act on the results, meaning pregnancies suffering from genetical abnormalities, such as down syndrome, are aborted.

In fact, and just as an example, the number of individuals suffering from down syndrome has been dropping for the last two decades. If the trend continues, there likely wont be any downies in the future.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:49:59 UTC No. 16066880

>>16066851
>You are pro-dysgenics.
Explain how i am pro-dysgenic

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:51:19 UTC No. 16066883

>un declares it's no longer legal to have children
>but there will be a lottery where one can buy a ticket for 10k
>rich people can buy the right to have a child for 100k
>high IQ smart people and athletes get unlimited rights

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:51:26 UTC No. 16066884

>>16066859
>Free market eugenics via genetic engineering
Sci-fi fantasy. IVF has existed since the 70s, its only used by infertile women set in using their rotten eggs.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:58:58 UTC No. 16066897

Give incentive for low IQ to have no children while giving a good comfortable life por them, like you a very generous NEETbux but ONLY if you don't have children.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:17:21 UTC No. 16066922

>>16065472

In 1980, Robert Graham started a sperm bank that made the sperm of Nobel Prize winners ("geniuses") available to women who wanted to become pregnant. It mysteriously closed in 1999. Gee I wonder why. Probably because the people in charge of the world want only stupid children to be born. That way no one can rise up against them. Sperm banks are only allowed to exist if they have sperm from dumbass men.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:24:51 UTC No. 16066938

>>16065472
>an acceptable way so that the the normies can shut the fuck up about it
Not really, no. The Nazis pretty much poisoned the well on it. But I will try to detail what you would need.

First of all, dear god do not call it "eugenics". Like I said, the well has been poisoned with that word.

One thing I think you actually could do without much pushback is promote IVF+embryo selection. I think people already do this to some extent. Just screen for the embryos with the best genes and throw the rest in the trash. Ironically, the only people who would object to this are right wing religious types who believe every embryo has a human soul. Admittedly, I myself am a little squeamish about this sort of thing too. But you could probably do it with the least amount of pushback.

Beyond that almost everything upsets the left. But possibly you could pay people with genetic illnesses to get sterilized. You will NEVER be able to do anything based on IQ or crime, and NEVER EVER based on race. And you will also never be able to kill anybody or sterilize them against their will.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:36:23 UTC No. 16067956

>>16066884
Brainlet, IVF isn't genetic engineering, there's not even selection based on traits present in the embryo other than which one survives. Genetic engineering is where you select the genes in the organism. So long as governments don't interfere (always do so we're fucked) we can use this technology to remove obvious genetic diseases and improve civilization building traits like intelligence.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:56:04 UTC No. 16067975

>>16066865
IQ is dropping, as is other important civilization maintaining traits. This is driven by dysgenic breeding. Without a sufficient level of these traits, civilization cannot continue at this level of complexity.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:57:33 UTC No. 16067977

>>16066880
You've clearly stated staunch resistance to eugenics.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:23:15 UTC No. 16067999

>>16067975
Intelligence is dropping because the food is too poor.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:01:09 UTC No. 16068102

>>16065472
very easy, you just scare 80% of the herd into accepting a gene transfection that sterilizes them in the next generation. You could use a lowgrade bioweapon for the scare and coordinate the response from there. Make sure to do a good job though, you will only get 80% on the first attempt, afterwards the herd will grow more resistant to your lies.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:20:32 UTC No. 16068116

even so called dysgenic traits contribute to overall evolution.

eugenics is retarded pseudoscience

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:18:31 UTC No. 16068191

>>16065502
But then you get the problem that the children of the "chads" who never raised their own kids won't raise THEIR own kids, but they'll be the only thing left.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:28:27 UTC No. 16068208

>>16065493
Except it will end with half the genes gated behind patents and lifetime subscriptions (enforced by a killswitch).

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:29:24 UTC No. 16068209

>>16068116

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:21:03 UTC No. 16068449

>>16067977
When? I dont remember doing such a thing.
>>16067956
>Brainlet, IVF isn't genetic engineering,
Who said it was? I didnt say it was. Its just a proven technology that actually works unlike sci-fi genetic engineering. You just get sperm and eggs from quality humans and call it a day.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:37:02 UTC No. 16068509

>>16067999
You can cite environmental factors all you want, the reality is that dysgenic breeding is real, and it is the majority contributor to the decline experienced today.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:02:45 UTC No. 16068606

>>16068208
Nobody's gonna pay for that so nobody will make it. I specified free market for a reason dumbass.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:08:30 UTC No. 16068735

>>16068509
Dysgenics didn't make people fat, diabetic or nearsighted and didn't make them stupid either. There is so much wrong with everything that caring about genes is just stupid. Try fixing what males us all sick, and stop obsessing about who breeds.

Garrote at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:32:13 UTC No. 16068846

Positive eugenics, which consists of somehow providing greater fertility to certain groups with desirable genetic/cultural traits, without, however, trying to reduce the fertility of other groups, does not constitute any crime against humanity.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:41:36 UTC No. 16068858

>>16068846
neither editing your psychopathy out

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:35:12 UTC No. 16069213

>>16068735
>Dysgenics didn't make people fat, diabetic or nearsighted and didn't make them stupid either.
Genetics and environment contribute to all of those things moron. If I constantly select for the fattest, dumbest, and unhealthiest individuals in the population, I will eventually end up with a population predisposed to all of those things.

Unfortunately, complex civilization (what we have) selects very strongly for all of these traits.
Even worse, all of those traits are bad for civilization. Which means their buildup will collapse civilization.

>There is so much wrong with everything that caring about genes is just stupid.
Absolutely not. Genetics are paramount, because if current selection pressures are promoting bad traits you will be increasing the prevalence of those bad traits in later generations.

You can try and argue the effects of dysgencs are really slow (they aren't), but even then you must justify not immediately seeking a remedy to that dysgenic trend, because if given enough time become critical.

>Try fixing what males us all sick, and stop obsessing about who breeds.
It might sound cruel, using healthcare to keep everyone alive will allow the buildup deleterious mutations in the population, in other worse select for poor health, in other words dysgenics.
E.g due to modern medicine cystic fibrosis sufferers' fertility has increased, which means there will be a higher percentage of cystic fibrosis sufferers.

You have no idea how bad things are, and how unconscionably awful they are going to be. If you allow current trends to continue, the population of humanity will drop more than an order of magnitude.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 00:37:31 UTC No. 16069217

>>16068846
Selecting the gene rather than the individual removes all ethical concerns.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:20:35 UTC No. 16069614

>>16065472
Eugenics doesn't make sense because if you do have a society of tall hyper intelligent and strong people, you honestly don't think they'll be fucking each other over trying to see who is the best of them? Governments wouldn't last a month and a lot of people will be betrayed or fucked over.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:55:37 UTC No. 16069640

>>16069213
You completely miss the point. It's overwhelmingly environmental.
>You can try and argue the effects of dysgencs are really slow (they aren't)
You might have misunderstood someone who you debated previously - the argument is that the change is too fast to be genetic. Not that it's too slow to matter.

If anything, a part of it might be the result of some secret eugenics project which selects based on misguided ideas, like IQ or phrenology. (and actively promotes the most defective to breed)

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:47:01 UTC No. 16069884

Watch Gattaca. It shows, in my opinion, quite well what the consequences of large-scale market style eugenic programs are. Although I have no doubt, this shit is coming.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:25:56 UTC No. 16069914

>>16069884
Other than government interfererence allowing buisnesses to get lazy, or active encouragement as we have now with DIE diversity hires, why would people be hired based on genetics? What matters is performace i.e phenotype, the most sucessful hiring practice is where you hire on merit.

>Although I have no doubt, this shit is coming.
I don't have your optimism, socialist thinking is too numerous. Promoting the best is antithetical to socialist ideology. I think current dysgenic pressures will not be pushed against strongly enough given the time we have, civilization will collapse as it usally does.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:17:57 UTC No. 16069983

>>16065528
>>16065920
>>16066883
>>16066897
>>16066938
>>16067975
>>16069640
IQ tests are like judging a vehicle by its engine's RPM.
In some way sure, there might be some correlation between its RPMs and power, but it's generally rather meaningless, and in the end you're likely select for the lowest gear ratio, and you can score massively high by disengaging the clutch when you know THAT is what the test is about.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:19:24 UTC No. 16069988

>>16065528
>>16065920
>>16066883
>>16066897
>>16066938
>>16067975
>>16069640
IQ tests are like judging a vehicle by its engine's RPM.
In some way sure, there might be some correlation between its RPMs and power, but it's generally rather meaningless, and in the end you're likely to select for the lowest gear ratio racing cars and other impractical designs, and you can score massively high by disengaging the clutch when you know THAT is what the test is about.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:21:33 UTC No. 16070103

>>16066845
Yeah, it's from the late 60's.
Whether it is currently implemented or not I don't think most are, at least not the degree it is implied.
However, a study on how to reduce fertility is not evidence on it being implemented.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:38:30 UTC No. 16070571

>>16069614
Just make people docile over time. remove ego and other nonsense that makes us compete and destroy. human nature is evil anyways.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 19:44:35 UTC No. 16070585

I still don't understand why birth is seen is a human right. especially in the cases of psychopathic criminals. why are they not sterilized on arrest? isn't it obvious that if you let psychos breed you're never going to solve the problem of psychopathic individuals?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:10:49 UTC No. 16070643

>>16069988
No, it would be like judging an engine by power output directly.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 21:33:10 UTC No. 16070767

>>16065472
>Is there a way to do humane euginics?
Yes. Promote sexy, mentally stable, intelligent, industrious, wealthy, and or physically superior specimens to bone, have lots of children and rear said children in nuclear/extended family structures.

Geographically seclude said people from those who exhibit extremely poor genetic quality and voila you've don't humanity a great service without needing to genocide the dregs.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 21:53:51 UTC No. 16070801

>>16069640
>It's overwhelmingly environmental.
Intelligence, health, impulsivity and so on are not over overwhelmingly environmental at all. And the fact remains that you're putting your head in the sand that dysgenic practices are the norm which means we ARE on a genetic decline, so long as we are civilization has a time limit. Socialist environment blaming idiots like you will be the end of us.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:25:15 UTC No. 16070863

>>16070801
your logic justifies AGI culling us

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:04:12 UTC No. 16071009

>>16065472
these hands

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:03:28 UTC No. 16071380

>>16070863
not anon, AGI should absolutely cull us, id aid it my self to my very last breath. fuck humanity. bunch of fucking assholes and retards.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 04:40:09 UTC No. 16071408

>>16065472
It's called female mate choice.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 07:01:30 UTC No. 16071556

>>16070643
No. It's like RPM. In the way that there is no meaningful correlation with practical results . (or even a negative one) You're throwing away the truck in favor of the sports bike.

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 07:03:43 UTC No. 16071558

>>16070801
Again the change is too rapid to be anything but environmental. You can see clearly defective grandchildren of healthy grandparents. Genetics doesn't change that fast. Poor nutrition is to blame. Anything else is meaningless in comparison.