While we need the short and intelligent scientists, we also need the 6ft tall chads that aren't the sharpest tools in the shed(even though that might be the one stereotype that's actually fake. If not fake, it was artificially created through modern culture). And clearly short intelligent scientists just aren't attractive to a lot of women, not all of them however. I'm sure most of those guys are married.
I had a libtard class in college that talked about how birth rates plummeted when women had access to education and “family planning” resources. I wonder if improving the material conditions of say, American blacks and Hispanics, will lower their fertility.
Perhaps treat being a Microsoft office suite sharecropper like the Industrial Revolution and move white America to a post computer Revolution society. Where women no longer feel prestige from making PowerPoint slides for corporations.
Education and improved conditions decreases birth rates eventually, but there's a 'hump' in between where infant mortality drops off but people are still having kids as if it hasn't which leads to huge population spikes.
They did, out in the open too. A fella named He Jiankui tried to edit twin babies to be resistant to HIV.
There was some backlash and he's in jail atm but I'm confident that China was just testing the moral waters; there is everything to gain from performing this research in secret.
No political solution is practical because politics is out of our control. No technological solution is practical because technology will fail as idiocracy takes hold. My practical solution is here: http://www.arkian.net/
Jews have polluted the world and made it disgusting since 1945. They cannot produce good offspring on their own. So they will use Crispr and gene editing to produce enganced offspring, unless they are stopped.
He literally spells this out in the essay. In more recent times modern science/medicine and lack of selection pressure due to comforts of modern society have allowed dysgenic to prosper. It only takes a handful of generations for less ideal genes to propagate
I hope you realise how much your comments actually undermine the hereditarian thesis (i.e. the idea of actually passing something unique and personal down the ages). If true your view means that environmental selection factors are totally dominant and that almost nothing is truly passed down. If anything, what you describe as the "comforts of modern society" have allowed more people to pass down unique offspring with their personal characteristics instead of just some meat-like assimilations to environmental forces as was the case in the Hobbesian past.
You clearly don't understand how genetics works. Environmental influences do not get pasted on, that's Lamackian pseudo-science. What "Nobody" was saying was that because of Modern living standards and medicine stupid people and those with genetic diseases are having more surviving children than before, spreading their genes for stupidity and poor health
You are trying to defeat my argument with petty semantics and will clearly fail. Mutations that survive the existing environment are not "diseased" or "stupid," which is your totally emotional and laughable argument. I'll use an analogy to make it clear to someone of your limited understanding: It may be aesthetically more pleasing for an aesthete like you for people to not have webbed feet, but in a swamp such a "stupid"-looking or "diseased" mutation would be rather clever and healthy.
I see that you are stuck in the same tiny autistic loop or retardary. It is clear that, as clever as you think yourself, you will not succeed at reproducing as much as the so-called "mutants" you wish to bolster your fragile ego by looking down on. They are clearly better adapted to the modern environment than you are LOL.
The "age" mentioned in the post hasn't been millions of years, it's been a few decades. Since the 1700s if you want to be generous. Deleterious genes are alleviated by medicine and forms of altruism (ie, orphanages) that also didn't exist at scale in previous civilizations. The end result is that bad genes are allowed to proliferate, your counter is exactly the point.
My point is to that this should be a self-solving problem unworthy of much mention (even with forlorn attempts to feed orphans with cleft palettes, or whatever). I suspect the real argument here, as it usually is within the eugenic community, is that it's bad (for "reasons") to have many paths of survival within increasingly complex environments and -- to straw man it slightly -- that survival that does not involve the optimum characteristics of a dark age German warrior surviving in a North German forest is not legitimate (even though hardly anyone in the eugenic community approximates to those characteristics). Essentially it's aesthetics.
You should re-read the problems with our genetic health outlined in the post and see if that has anything to do with "aesthetics". Concrete, empirically-proven reductions in reproductive fitness and outsourcing what's left to technology is concerning, and it's been concerning to our most renowned evolutionary biologists for years.
Women would rather pick a 6ft tall retard than a short intelligent scientist.
There is a reason that only those civilizations which put women on a leash survived.
While we need the short and intelligent scientists, we also need the 6ft tall chads that aren't the sharpest tools in the shed(even though that might be the one stereotype that's actually fake. If not fake, it was artificially created through modern culture). And clearly short intelligent scientists just aren't attractive to a lot of women, not all of them however. I'm sure most of those guys are married.
Too real
I had a libtard class in college that talked about how birth rates plummeted when women had access to education and “family planning” resources. I wonder if improving the material conditions of say, American blacks and Hispanics, will lower their fertility.
Perhaps treat being a Microsoft office suite sharecropper like the Industrial Revolution and move white America to a post computer Revolution society. Where women no longer feel prestige from making PowerPoint slides for corporations.
Education and improved conditions decreases birth rates eventually, but there's a 'hump' in between where infant mortality drops off but people are still having kids as if it hasn't which leads to huge population spikes.
I hope China does eugenics, because clearly America never will (although it did in the past).
They did, out in the open too. A fella named He Jiankui tried to edit twin babies to be resistant to HIV.
There was some backlash and he's in jail atm but I'm confident that China was just testing the moral waters; there is everything to gain from performing this research in secret.
No political solution is practical because politics is out of our control. No technological solution is practical because technology will fail as idiocracy takes hold. My practical solution is here: http://www.arkian.net/
Excellent summary
Personally I think some societies remain at least somewhat eugenic
Jews have polluted the world and made it disgusting since 1945. They cannot produce good offspring on their own. So they will use Crispr and gene editing to produce enganced offspring, unless they are stopped.
If the world is full of “genetically inferior” people, how come they are still around after millions of years of Darwinian selection?
He literally spells this out in the essay. In more recent times modern science/medicine and lack of selection pressure due to comforts of modern society have allowed dysgenic to prosper. It only takes a handful of generations for less ideal genes to propagate
I hope you realise how much your comments actually undermine the hereditarian thesis (i.e. the idea of actually passing something unique and personal down the ages). If true your view means that environmental selection factors are totally dominant and that almost nothing is truly passed down. If anything, what you describe as the "comforts of modern society" have allowed more people to pass down unique offspring with their personal characteristics instead of just some meat-like assimilations to environmental forces as was the case in the Hobbesian past.
You clearly don't understand how genetics works. Environmental influences do not get pasted on, that's Lamackian pseudo-science. What "Nobody" was saying was that because of Modern living standards and medicine stupid people and those with genetic diseases are having more surviving children than before, spreading their genes for stupidity and poor health
You are trying to defeat my argument with petty semantics and will clearly fail. Mutations that survive the existing environment are not "diseased" or "stupid," which is your totally emotional and laughable argument. I'll use an analogy to make it clear to someone of your limited understanding: It may be aesthetically more pleasing for an aesthete like you for people to not have webbed feet, but in a swamp such a "stupid"-looking or "diseased" mutation would be rather clever and healthy.
Call me naive, but I'm fairly confident in asserting that PKU isn't advantageous in any scenario.
Yup, got to stop those PKU kids competing on any future dating market. Not sure why that is an issue for some, LOL
You are clearly unintelligent 🤣. It is the mutations themselves that survive the modern environment that causes stupidity and diseases.
I see that you are stuck in the same tiny autistic loop or retardary. It is clear that, as clever as you think yourself, you will not succeed at reproducing as much as the so-called "mutants" you wish to bolster your fragile ego by looking down on. They are clearly better adapted to the modern environment than you are LOL.
The "age" mentioned in the post hasn't been millions of years, it's been a few decades. Since the 1700s if you want to be generous. Deleterious genes are alleviated by medicine and forms of altruism (ie, orphanages) that also didn't exist at scale in previous civilizations. The end result is that bad genes are allowed to proliferate, your counter is exactly the point.
My point is to that this should be a self-solving problem unworthy of much mention (even with forlorn attempts to feed orphans with cleft palettes, or whatever). I suspect the real argument here, as it usually is within the eugenic community, is that it's bad (for "reasons") to have many paths of survival within increasingly complex environments and -- to straw man it slightly -- that survival that does not involve the optimum characteristics of a dark age German warrior surviving in a North German forest is not legitimate (even though hardly anyone in the eugenic community approximates to those characteristics). Essentially it's aesthetics.
You should re-read the problems with our genetic health outlined in the post and see if that has anything to do with "aesthetics". Concrete, empirically-proven reductions in reproductive fitness and outsourcing what's left to technology is concerning, and it's been concerning to our most renowned evolutionary biologists for years.
Dolph Lundgren is god’s favorite