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