WHY DO WE NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR SELF CONSCIENCE-NESS AND SELECTIVELY BREED
 

i'm pretty sure we haven't figured out what makes us smart right? like einstein came from a couple dummies, and his kids are irrelevant.

but one thing that is for sure, is that physical traits get passed on. i guess this is eugenics type shit.

now i'm not speaking racistly. most likely the opposite. when every human hits puberty they should be tested and evaluated, and once again when they hit like 18 or something and then again at 25.

we already have genetic heroes like cromartie and shawn kemp who have done there best to flood the world with their genes, but really tho, why didnt we stud out shaq like a racehorse. no racism.

why doesn't brock lesnar have 200 kids? granted he wouldnt be in charge of raising them. if you aren't a genetic freak in one way or another, speed, height, strength etc, you would be sterilized. you still get to fuck whoever, but you don't get to pass on your shit genes. if you don't want your girl to fuck lebron james that is ok too, you just take her to the lab and get her inseminated

this is nonsense

i know so many nothings who have nothing kids who will be nothing and do nothing.

think about how more efficient everything would be

lets get going america and lead the way

Lol
This is called facism, uh-oh, and most people frown upon it

Mussollini to thread

brock lesnar doesn't have 200 kids because we don't want an entire world full of high voiced, glass chinned, soft spoken weirdos with dick sword tattoos who can't even put together a first-grade level sentence without the help of a washed up overweight 50 year old wrestling promoter.

The trouble is keeping on focus for more than a generation.

(You may be thinking about the Methuselah's Children "future history" of Robert Heinlein, where he suggests a very rich eccentric with a short lifespan endows an institute to pay couples with long-lived grandparents to marry/breed, resulting in people with exceptional lifespans.)

The downside is what one generation may consider acceptable behaviour is not acceptable a generation later - Hitler's racial purity efforts, or the early 20th century drive to sterilize the "defective".

Plus, there's the timeline. It takes so many generations - Jared Diamond, in comments about agriculture, mentions that the life cycle of trees was too long for many to be domesticated by breeding; most are still cultivated to produce usable fruit with grafts. Similarly, IIRC reading once, there are no dometicated elephants; they are captured wild, usually young, and trained. Unlike real domestic animals, the breeding times are too long for them to have been selectively bred for tasks.

I guess the other question would be - what traits? And, who says that your "breeding stock" is going to cooperate, when even the guards are tempted to make an off-plan contribution, and the people in charge of the plan are certainly going to be tempted by the opportunity to make an off-plan contribution to the gene pool?

Sure, the nazis dabbled in eugenics but they only lasted a generation.

I think the closest thing you'd get to this would be the royal families. And that would be a very loose definition of selective breeding since they weren't breeding for a trait or traits, but for connections.

I'm gonna have 3-4 kids all with different woman

Ah yes, royal blood purity, aka sister-fucking.

That's how you got Richard III and Charles II.

Let's not bring that back.

Interestingly this can all tie in to how shady hillary Clinton is.... and if you are against eugenics you can not be for Hillary without massive hypocrisy.

Would any one like me to elab?

Yo, tell this liply-challenged faggot to get my wife out his avy
I dont play that shit fuckboy
I will fly to miami and just start beating anyone with a hairlip til i get to u

I'll do it but only out of respect for my elders

The states are guilty of it, too.

David Koresh forbade the men in his cult from having sex, but rutted at will with the female members.

Polygamist sects in Utah have the system rigged so the male elders get their pick of nubile teenaged girls. Millenarian sects in 19th Century US all originally had similar arrangements.

Few of these lasted more than the first generation.

Dr. William Shockley, co-inventor of the transistor and co-winner of the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics for said achievement, also believed in IQ as a measurement of intelligence (of the useful sort), in its genetic determination, and in racial differences thereof. He advocated, funded and even participated in (with sperm donation) eugenics programs to encourage more reproduction from high-IQ whites, to suppress fertility of minorities and to encourage paid voluntary sterilization of anyone with IQs below 100.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...s_and_genetics

Specifically to answer the OP: the organization with the "breeding program" that he participated in was called the Repository for Germinal Choice.
With the implication, I suppose, that if they ever hooked up with the right people who then got in power, the word "Choice" could simply be replaced with "Policy" and "Repository" with "Bureau"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reposi...erminal_Choice

The parents of Yao Ming, the tallest-ever NBA basketball star, were introduced to each other by the government and strongly encouraged to marry and have kid(s). Both of them were tall and were former professional basketball players themselves.

Which reminds me, there's reference to eugenics and selective breeding both in Star Trek (Khan and the Eugenics War etc.) @veritas to confirm and Niven and Pournelle's The Mote in God's Eye (the "Sauron supermen").

The stories of Niven and Pournelle from "The Mote In GOd's Eye" also form the basis for the "War World" series of books which have much more detail on the Sauron SUpermen. It seems to be more likely a genetic modification program. (Including hints of animal DNA mixed in). Of course, all that genetic material was turned into people using the old-fashioned gestational apparatus.

The excellent short story from that mix, "Brenda" by Larry Niven, has a quick dissertation about breeding and superhuman traits - IIRC "doubling the gene for night-vision gave daytime blindness, doubled fast-clot genes so warriors did not bleed to death meant heart attacks and strokes by age 45..."

The problem is finding cooperative participants in breeding programs; most of humanity has found it difficult to tell others when and with whom to breed and not breed, no matter what the incentives. And if they do have such control, as I mentioned before, I would think they often take the temptation to add some genetic material of their own, even if it does not meet the program goals.


There were the Oneidans (yes, the same ones who made the tableware). There's a separate article for Oneida "stirpiculture", which was the word coined by the founder for his selective breeding program. As is usual with such cults, the leader was mighty proud of his own genetics and sought to spread them far and wide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community

Jimmy the Greek, a sports commentator, publicly claimed that American slaveowners bred their African slaves for strength, which (Jimmy claimed) accounted for the disproportionate representation of African-Americans in the elite levels of American sports.

Jimmy was subsequently fired for making this statement, and I know of no reputable academic who supports Jimmy's thesis.

The Raëlian cult (no, they are not Classic Genesis fans) literally is a cult and literally is, or claims to be, working on the genetic engineering of humans.

I wasnt thinking about lifespan. I was mainly thinking more from selecting the men not the women but obviously it would make more sense to select women too.

I dont see what the purpose of tampering would be. I get we all want to pass our individual genes on but is it from a standpoint of just wanting sex? Or is it deeper? When i think about wanting a son its strictly because i want to make a better version of me. But lets be real. Im the most gorgeous physical specimen on these boards. I wouldnt be fit to reproduce in the world i speak of

But again it has nothing to do with anything other than physicality i guess. I didnt think deep enough to resistances to sickness etc. Intelligence itself isnt passed on, but physical traits are. Just imagine if everyone was 7 foot 300 pounds of solid muscle. The cut off would be like 6"5 and theyd have to be a healthy 6'5 meaning proportionate. No manute bol's only shaqs and lebrons. I only threw lesnar out because he was the first big white dude i could think of but in reality we'd have to go for more icelandic types like the mountain

But i guess wed have to get speed too. I dunno. Basically lets just mate the big black bucks with the big black woman and make jimmy the greek a national icon

Props to lars. It was only a matter of time til jmmy the greek was brought up in here lmao

But its the truth. I never met a black dude with bad teeth. Lmao

@uh-oh from what I understand, your question is: if smart and good looking people only bred with others of the same ilk, then would there be even smarter and even better looking descendants? (i.e., a qualitative vs a quantitative result) after several generations? What about a quantitative increase, i.e., MORE smart and good looking descendants?


There are a couple of big problems with this. Here's just a few examples:

1. Humans take a longggg time to grow to breeding age bruh... It's going to take many generations to see the effects of your breeding program, hence my point earlier in the thread. It's not a coincidence that domestic animals tend to be ones that take less time to mature to breeding age.

2. How, exactly, are we measuring beauty and intelligence for the purposes of this project?

You mentioned your son being a "bigger, better" version of yourself. Most measures we have of such things are highly culture-dependent, and aren't always stable over time. Both big and small breasts were fashionable at different times in the twentieth century, which is only 3-4 human generations. Who's setting the breed standard here, and how do we keep it from changing? (I'm talking, lets say, three generations down the line after you're long dead and buried... who is going to be holding those exact same principles, morals and ethical values as you did when you started your project?)

3. What are we going to do with the offspring who aren't up to snuff? The laws and public opinion in most countries with decent infrastructure take a dim view of killing them, abandoning them, sterilizing them, or throwing them out of the community. A lot of people would have problems with doing this kind of thing to their own kids for the good of the community. What do we do when we have a child that clearly doesn't meet our standards, but its parents want to keep it and help it find a mate?

4. Beauty and intelligence are probably not solely genetic. There are probably also environmental factors that go into them that impact on all, in truth. Outside influences as much as inside. The term "product of your environment" exists for a reason.

5. People are interested in having sex with others who are neither smart (destroyer) nor beautiful (muff). Married people who have affairs (amen)don't always choose lovers who are smarter and more physically attractive than their spouses. Prince Charles' affair with Camilla Parker Bowles is a famous example of this that comes to mind even though I've already touched on the royal bloodline slightly earlier ITT.)

the floor is yours

To even consider this a plausible topic is beyond me homies.

Who is going to submit to this shit?

Out of ten thousand people i dare say close to only 5% would realistically be optimal for cloning or any variation of.

What are we to do with the runts?

If u subscribe to Darwinism u already believe humanity is naturally sifting through our weaker peers.
And, if u are of the religiously dogmatic party, u believe u r striving to individually become better in all aspects, though u understand that perfection is unattainable. Theoretically.

I suggest we move on from this breeding/cloning nonsense.

MY kids are genetic freaks of nature.

My oldest son 12years old is currently undefeated in greco wrestling. KId is phenomenal and it's his passion and I support him 100%.

All thou, I'd love for him to play baseball and football, over the homo wrestling and MMA, I support him and do it with him to show support.

My youngest son 7 years old - is a beast as baseball and football. He's always being drafted by some league to play with kids that are much older. I think it's a little insane as I want him to continue to develop but the opportunity for exposure at such a young age is there for him. It's stressful because, football - it typically goes by weight and/or age. He's 7 years old and 55 lbs, solid. But when compared to the kids in the league, he's extremely small. Thats what scares me. He's the half back and the safety - and his intensity and heart keeps him competing with kids a lot older. But I think I"m going to try and keep him at the level he SHOULD be in for developmental reasons. I huge kid landing on my son can end him easily, considering he's so small in comparison to those in the league. It's a tough decision, but as a parent, I have to do whats best for him.

It's no surprise my children are very athletic, I was really athletic as well and still am. I'm involved in everything they do, as far as coaching their teams and even at home. I do not allow them to sit in front of a monitor and play video games. Thats a privileged. They understand that if they want to grow up and be the superstars they dream to be, it takes work. SO we do just that, WORK.

My sports were baseball, football, track n field, swimming/diving and boxing.

Football and baseball being my 2 favorite were shattered in a college game when my ACL and Achilles tore. Not fun.

I was going to pursue boxing but the birth of my oldest slowed that down for me and I ended up giving up on it, sadly.

It's how you raise them. Genetics are a big factor but how you raise them, is essential. I've coach both of my boys in every sport they compete in and see the difference between parents who spend the time I spend with mine and parents who just allow their kids to sit in front of a TV for either watching TV or playing video games. There is a major difference in the level of intensity and hand eye coordination when competing against one another. Parents these days just allow their kids to play games day in and day out and it's killing their potential... Their natural born gifts (if they had any passed down genetically) Thank god my boys have good genes from both his mother and myself. She was really athletic as well and played softball all the way through college nearly making pro until she met me and kind of gave up on it, smh.

You guys can talk all the shit you want, but remember the name "SANTIAGO"

Because in either baseball, football or wrestling and/or MMA that name will take over once my kids are at that level of competition later in life.

Watch.

What we need to do is lab create some human/animal hybrids for war

Disregard last post amen already posted proof above it won't yield great results

lol, you're such a fag, bruh.

Okay @Blanco Bishop i'm about to play devils advocate in this thread a little since you indulged...

In what way is it not "plausible"?

I could argue that we do, already, select for beauty in our mating partners. And we do select for intelligence. Now, I may or may not be defining beauty as inner beauty, or emotional suitability as a spouse. I may or may not be defining intelligence as "gaming the system", for example people like Kim Kardashian do know how to earn a very good living, without building rockets or curing cancer in the garage. But the human race has pretty much been getting just what it wants, one baby step a generation, just like all other sexually reproducing species.

This is happening via natural selection, all around us, right now and has been for years.

Are we not already "selectively" breeding in a sense?

Totes mcdude

Stfu you lonely piece of shit

@glossy

https://s3.postimg.org/ltxpa52w3/image.jpg


You're a lying deadbeat piece of shit for a father anyway.

They must be so proud.

Lmao

Why gods gift to women look like the dude with 4 different custodial contracts and a rusty huffy

Ah! as one author stated "a glimpse into human delusions of superiority"

There is hardly never a direct 1:1 relationship between one gene and one phenotypic trait. In general, most traits are polygenic and most genes are pleiotropic (affect many different traits). It is more accurate to think of the situation as a huge, complex network of genes and gene products influencing each other. The heritability of personality traits and certain complex hereditary diseases tend to be moderate (calculated from twin and adoption studies). Using Genome-wide association studies to analyze hundreds of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), scientists have found that candidate SNPs can only account for a fraction of his heritability (“missing heritability problem”). This may be accounted for by rare gene variants that are unique for different populations, variation in copy number or genetic interactions.

While invariably the quest for the perfect race came before 18th- 20th-century scientific outgrowths, most of the arguments stem from antiquated scientific understandings of the genetic code. The modern idea of differential reproduction comes from skewed misunderstandings of anthropological research, which became a fulcrum that gave rise to bizarre Eugenic theoretical constructs.
Such misunderstandings come not only from misrepresentations of the ideas of popular figures like Darwin or Herbert Spencer. But other figures such as the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Von Linnaeus, attributed with the binomial system of taxonomy nomenclature for genus identification, including the sub speciation of hominids. Linnaeus created a the taxon "monstrosus" for "wild and monstrous humans, unknown groups and more or less abnormal people. I refer you to Willoughby work on "The Evolution of Modern Humans in Africa" for a more comprehensive outline.

But Darwin's contemporary, Herbert Spencer, used Darwinian concepts, like natural selection, and twisted them to suit his own intents with social divisions in mind. Of course, as a modern veterinarian puts it, nascent pseudoscience had a prominent play as well. Spencer followers began to increasingly reference certain classes of hominids with chauvinistic slogans such as "human weeds" that ought to be exterminated or at least allowed to selectively breed.

Now going back to my main premise. Genetic interaction between two people is a complex subject. Its not as simple as two individuals with desirable traits mating. For example, someone with a genetic predisposition toward hayfever and other allergic conditions such as dermatitis, may not actually manifest the genetic tendency until 3 or 4 generations later. The same can be said with morphological attributes such as heterochromia iridum. Now due to the advent of modern findings, we are at a juncture where manipulation of certain genes is quite possible and the bioethics of it is already a popular issue with various political and medical oppositional stances.

There is also the issue that what is viewed as desirable, in terms of morphology and physicality, is highly cultural and socially dependable. Many medical or historical anthropologists would tell you this. That said the original premise of this thread argued for some universal physical or mental prowess that if genetically manipulated through controlled reproduction will show consistency in manifesting in the human race.
Again if history has proven its point, such endeavors are not so simplistic that just by allowing those with better traits to reproduce, their offspring will possess those desirable traits. Genetic determinism has many fallacious aspects to it. I refer you to Arguments and Analysis in Bioethics by Matti Häyry for an outline of these, even just reading the preface will suffice to gain an understanding of the many issues at play.

Essentially this idea has been refuted. Lamarck evolutionism, what your arguing for, have failed to have validity in hereditary studies. As Abraham Myerson puts it "‘ … the potentialities of any person’s germ plasm in the succeeding generations may be ascertained. There are fine people springing from the most unlikely parents, and the finest parents may bring forth the wildest and most inadequate progeny". Even Darwin's own ideas of pangenesis are criticized for its Lamarckian assertions.

oh shit lol

we have some misconceptions here but i'll answer your points by the numbers

1. it isn't about changing us over night, or even in 1000 years, its just about making the best us moving forward. it takes thousands of years to make a chihuahuh (spelling lol) from a wolf, even with them getting into breeding age early. it isnt about that as much as mating lebron james and serena williams NOW. their kid is gonna be a beast. undoubtedly. we can even make her more fertile and she can have a litter like the octomom lol. but realistically itd probably be best one baby at a time letting it get the most womb nutrients or whatever. but yea i'm not looking for instant results as much as just putting the wheels in motion.

2. i've still yet to mention intelligence, you bring it up. i mention it in the sense that we can't quantify it in the sense that its passed on. like i said einsteins parents were dolts. his kids are regular dummies too. intelligence as i understand it is a crapshoot. the smartest people can have dumbass kids and vice versa. as far as BEAUTY, beauty is absolutely quantifiable through evolutionary science. we all have preferences, but across recorded history, and across every single culture, women go for taller men, broader shoulders etc., and men seek the hourglass figure. we like wide hips and fat asses because it helps with child rearing. we like big tits cuz it can nourish the offspring better, as well as the extra fat just helps the child in UTERO. but from ancient times to modern times the hourglass figure is revered, like i said we all vary in preferences, some guys like really skinny chicks with boy bodies. but we are working with averages here, and there is a reason instagram models with nice asses and tits have millions of followers, there is a reason certain pornstars are more popular than others etc. i'm sure you're thinking of maybe victorian times when paintings had goofy fat women in them and we're taught oh they liked fat women then, but keep in mind if you were fat you were well off, and also even those fat women would dress in dresses that got huge and puffy at the hips and tight at the waist with a corset with the tits smashed and pushed up. accentuating the hourglass figure you can see in every culture celebrated.

3. Offspring, and people who aren't up to snuff are sterilized. You're still allowed to marry and live a normal life, just if you want children you have to either have your chick knocked up, she doesn't even have to be with a lebron james for instance, but if she is deemed capable, you can get her inseminated. you basically live normal lives, you just have a sperm donor. if you're a scrawny blonde haired blue eyed guy you can get the blonde hair blue eyed jizz from some norse animal for your girl and raise him like your own. They aren't denied anything except the ability to pass on their own genes. They can find a "mate" and raise a family. its just not their genetics. Women who aren't up to snuff adopt, and women who are will be paid handsomely to have more kids, and you can even have them sell their eggs, so they don't carry the baby at all and have it placed in the inferior woman to rear.

4. I'm not so sure as far as beauty or intelligence goes. Ben carson is a genius in the field of operating on brains, granted he believes in bible nonsense and thinks the pyramids were grain silos, but still he was from a poor community in detroit and ascended as high as anyone. The same with beauty, you can find absolute dimes from trailerparks. again both are rare, but its possible. When everyone being born is a genetic freak the chances will go up as far as beauty and again, intelligence i've seen nothing in the way of it being genetic, its a crapshoot.

5. Again, none of these people will be stopped from living these lives. Lebron james can fuck and marry honey boo boos wife. He just has to make monthly sperm deposits under a government mandate, and honey boo boo's mom will be sterilized/tubes tied. No one is stopped from fucking anyone, they are being stopped from breeding.

oh you found a picture I posted on here a while ago.

Cool.

Keep reaching.

Lol @ a picture with my boys making me a deadbeat.

You're all delusional and retarded.

I'm going to address these things one at a time to save endless walls of text no one will read in the hope people may read one or two and have some input.

What you're suggesting is then already happening, via natural selection or related means. But you're not happy with that, you're the big Spartan emperor with a wicked ideology who doesn't give a fuck if it's politically or socially possible. As long as it's physically possible, Emperor Uh-Oh wants it done. So...

The people you breed will have to be slaves, otherwise you cannot exercise control over their reproduction. Small problem, slavery is illegal. No big whoop, you're the emperor, you just reinstate slavery, done and done. So you happily proceed with your breeding program. You select specimens (LeBron James and Serena Williams) that have the physical characteristics you want, you breed them to each other, the resulting generation expresses those traits even more strongly, you breed those that exhibit the traits most strongly to each other again, and so on. Standard stockbreeding technique, it will work on humans just like on any other animal if you can control their reproduction.

OK, but the problem is that human generation times are what we scientists call 'very long'. You've got a 15 year minimum generation time, and each breeding is likely to produce only one offspring. Since you will try to breed your prize specimens more than once, average generation time is going to be more than 15 years. So, realistically, you're only going to have 4 or 5 generations of breeding before you die. And die you will, you're the emperor, but you're not immortal. You with me so far? Good. No problem, your successor will continue your breeding program. Right? ...Or not. Wait, actually they probably won't, once you're dead the breeding program will likely be abandoned. In this eventual happening, be it over one generation or 1000 years, that will be the end of the program.

And that's the rub. There doesn't seem to be any way to perpetuate a multi-generational breeding scheme, because the people who start the breeding scheme won't be around more than one generation themselves. With livestock, that's not a problem, because livestock generations are shorter, but also because the desired traits are likely to be desired by subsequent generations. All dairy farmers want cows that produce more milk, all poultry farmers want chickens that produce more eggs, all pig farmers want pigs that gain weight more quickly. And so formal breeding programs that span multiple human generations ARE possible. Of course, for most of human history selective breeding hasn't been so formal... but farmers have always culled and eaten undesirable animals and bred the most desirable animals. Keep this up for a few thousand years and you're going to get somewhere.

But how is that going to work for humans? The only way it will work is if there were a multi-generational consensus on what human traits were desirable, AND a conscious decision to preserve those traits. (I NOTED THE WORD CONSCIENCE-NESS IN THE THREAD TITLE, DONT WORRY!). And it seems that smart, healthy, beautiful people are more likely to be selected as breeding partners than stupid, sickly ugly dirtpeople. So there you go, human breeding programs.


In theory it could work, but in all honesty the chances are your dream will die with you bruh.

Keep your kid in his division bro. There was a tough tiny kid on my midget team and his dad was a coach. We ran oklahoma drills in like a tourney sense, if you lost you were out. He was popping kids because they were dumb kids and he was an animal who understood his speed made up for his size and he could get under. I was a fullback/linebacker at the time one of the fastest kids on the team and we met in the drill. We collided pretty good and i had to pretend like i was hurt but in reality im sure i concussed the kid. It was an ohhhhh hit and he was on the ground holding his head lmao so i was like ahhh that hirt too. In reality i wouldve stepped on his chest and kept it moving in a game but he was my teammate yadig

I was also born at the cutoff so my first year i played with kids in my grade, 4th grade or whatever, that was that year, but in 5th grade i played with 6th graders, and then in 6th grade i still played with 6th graders it was weird. In 7th i played for both middle school teams 7th and 8th. By then i was fat and smoking weed tho so i played de and g. I got bodied religiously by 8th graders but could slip blocks here and there

I was always better playing with kids my age though. He'll look better with kids his own age and he aint gonna get lit up as easy. I was barely making the cutoff to be a ball carrier in those years. Thats kind of what you want. Unless hes a tiny scat back.

lmao i didn't obtain that from this website.

there are more.

consider that a warning faggot.

push my buttons and watch how quick things can get ugly for you.

Yea man. The thing is, the kids his age can not tackle nor keep up with him LOL.

He's a beast. But I'd rather keep him where he belongs.

Same went for me, in middle school I was playing with high school kids, because of my speed and agility.

Oh well. Either way, these kids are going to go pro, one day.

LMAO, bro - I don't give 2 shits what YOU or anyone thinks. Let's be real here, neither of you affect me in any way.

Do as you please, FAGGOT.

That's why I mentioned Darwinism bro.

The American eugenics movement was deeply tied to racism. Eliminating the African American because it was genetically inferior. Margaret Sanger was the founder of planned parenthood. Margaret Saenger was an eugenics Israel. She also advocated for the removal of blacks. YouTube her saying it. Margaret Saenger racist.

Hillary recently won the margaret Saenger award. Connect the dots. Facts. Go research and see the truth of my claims.

Dead. Dead bc of actual idiocracy happening in reality.

And look at you now..

I will set up an escrow for $10k that says neither of your kids will make it to the professional level of any of the big 4 American sports.

Winner take all.

Interested?

Just like me he says as he sits here getting butthurt by net trolls at the age of 30 never going past peewee league in his life

The 10k wont mean as much if his kids making millions tho