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

[Amen]

lol, you're such a fag, bruh.

[sral]

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?

[~RustyGunZ~]

Totes mcdude

Stfu you lonely piece of shit

@glossy

[sral]

Originally Posted by dickNoze

MY kids are genetic freaks of nature.

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


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

They must be so proud.

[~RustyGunZ~]

Lmao

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

[UnbornBuddha]

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.

[Ghost1]

Originally Posted by sraL

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

They must be so proud.

oh shit lol

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by sraL

@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.)

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.

[Amen]

Originally Posted by sraL

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


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

They must be so proud.

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.

[sral]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

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.

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.

[uh-oh]

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.

[sral]

Originally Posted by dickNoze

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.

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.

[Amen]

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.

[Amen]

Originally Posted by sraL

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.

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.

[Blanco Bishop]

Originally Posted by sraL

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?

That's why I mentioned Darwinism bro.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by sraL

the floor is yours

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.

[veritas]

Dead. Dead bc of actual idiocracy happening in reality.

[Diode]

Originally Posted by dickNoze

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.

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?

[~RustyGunZ~]

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

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by Diode

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?

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