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

[uh-oh]

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

[Destroyer]

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

[Awww Shit]

I don't have a list of reasons, but tequila has to be in the top 5

[Ghost1]

Mussollini to thread

[Diode]

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.

[sral]

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.

[Hearder Hearder]

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

[Diode]

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

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

Let's not bring that back.

[veritas]

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?

[Destroyer]

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

[Hearder Hearder]

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

[sral]

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

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

Let's not bring that back.

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/William_Shockley#Statements_about_populations_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/Repository_for_Germinal_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.

Raëlians seek to both genetically clone individuals, rapidly accelerate growth of the clone to adulthood through a process like guided self-assembly of rapidly expanded cells or even nanotechnology and then transfer the mind and personality of the donor into the clone. Raëlians believe humanity can attain eternal life through the science of cloning.

In the final stages of development, hitherto unknown information contained within undamaged DNA would be enough to bring others back from the dead including their memories and personality. This would be done by taking a small sample from someone's body and preserving it at the time when the level of the brain's efficiency and knowledge is highest. On the day of death, a cell would be taken from the sample for the cloning to take place, and the memories and personality would be restored to their peak level.

Claude Vorilhon told lawmakers that banning the development of human cloning was comparable to outlawing medical advances such "antibiotics, blood transfusions, and vaccines."

[uh-oh]

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

[uh-oh]

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

[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.)

[sral]

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?

the floor is yours

[Blanco Bishop]

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.

[Amen]

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.

[~RustyGunZ~]

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

[~RustyGunZ~]

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

[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]

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]

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 shit lol

[uh-oh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Amen]

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?

Let's do it.

Lol @ grown men trying to belittle my kids.

Sad life you live.

[Amen]

Also, Knuckle - none of you could ever upset me, bruh.

Not possible, but keep trying. I appreciate the effort.

[King Karaoke]

Also, Knuckle - none of you could ever upset me, bruh.

Not possible, but keep trying. I appreciate the effort.

Hi...

Sigh...
This site is full of a bunch of corny dudes who think posting other people's pics and personal info makes them Lex Luthor...
No it just makes them weird...

Bye...

[Witty]

Lots of long posts iit.

[sral]

Hi...

Sigh...
This site is full of a bunch of corny dudes who think posting other people's pics and personal info makes them Lex Luthor...
No it just makes them weird...

Bye...

hold the fuck up here because I always keep it 110% real with you motherfuckers here..

my intention of posting people's kids so they can be ridiculed in some kind of way is non-existent

the reason behind me showing amen with his is because he is a lying, cheating pathetic asshole prepared to risk relationship with his own children and fuck up their childhood and the only parents they've ever known jut because he not grown enough to resist temptation like a fucking man

I posted this picture to remind him of what he has, and what he will lose when he's ultimately caught out in his own lie when it eventually happens

as a father myself you really think imma be looking to post pictures of ppls kids for the board to mock?

come the fuck on Kar

you been known me too long to think I'm on some fuck shit

[sral]

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


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.

Okay, so we'll leave intelligence alone for now since we haven't defined what you mean by "intelligence" for now anyway. Even though you talked on "beauty", you mentioned quite a few athletes in LeBron/Serena/Brock and so I think what you're actually looking for is "Health".

Beauty it is, emperor Uh-oh. You have your definition of what beauty is. Unfortunately for you, not every man alive agrees (as seen in Bags recent attempt to upgrade grocery store Tinderella to a strong 6).


Why does this not happen automatically?
-Low standards by men. IIRC it was Helen Gurley-Brown who remarked, "men will schtupp mud." Considering what's pushing around baby strollers either, this is very true or they have some deep inner beauty... very deep.

-Some health problems - heart issues, breast cancer, alzheimers - tend to not appear until breeding selection and actvity has passed. If we were actively selecting for good traits, these would not be identified.

-Many (especially late in life) health issues also relate to environmental factors, so selection does not matter. Many we still have no idea about the real cause.

-Modern medicine and other technology is actually working to send us backwards. Not only do people with poor vision, for example, have glasses that allow them to avoid being culled by random accidents, they also have contact lenses so the defect is not evident during the mating phase.

-Similarly, modern techniques with cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, etc. hide the effects of poor genes during the mating phase.

-Similarly, we have welfare, medicare, etc. that allow the less capable to continue to reproduce, when social as well as medical circumstances might have limited the number or survivability of offspring. Also, we have birth control for the upper class, meaning the successful have more incentive and means to reduce their offspring which would cut into the lifestyle and toys they can have.

essentially the rule of thumb is probably that it's 50-50; so a not-so-smart person with a good education and training can outperform a smart lazy bastard.

-Success and more offspring does not correlate with smarts or fitness. Who is better suited for passing on their relatively lesser quality genes? Trump seems to have more children than Einstein...

[Amen]

Lol risking relationship with my kids had nothing to do with their mother, moron.

Regardless of anything, they will ALWAYS be in my life, retard.

My bond with my boys will never break. Continue being the weirdo faggot you are reaching and searching for people's pictures.

This is why your son will always be a beta faggot, sadly like his father.

Keep thinking you know what you are talking about.

And continue to live in the delusional happy ending story you believe you live in.

You don't cheat because you can't. If you could, you would.

Every dude had at one point or another.

You have no idea how or what my relationship with my sons mother is like, fuckboy.

Keep thinking you do tho, lol.

[Amen]

Hi...

Sigh...
This site is full of a bunch of corny dudes who think posting other people's pics and personal info makes them Lex Luthor...
No it just makes them weird...

Bye...

I know, lol. Entertaining tho. None of these dudes could touch me outside of NC which is why they try so hard on NC.

The attempts at ridiculing and name changes is comical.

I'm glad I get underneath their skin tho.

Because if this was the real world, they'd get bodied.

And that's a fact.

[uh-oh]

Okay, so we'll leave intelligence alone for now since we haven't defined what you mean by "intelligence" for now anyway. Even though you talked on "beauty", you mentioned quite a few athletes in LeBron/Serena/Brock and so I think what you're actually looking for is "Health".

Beauty it is, emperor Uh-oh. You have your definition of what beauty is. Unfortunately for you, not every man alive agrees (as seen in Bags recent attempt to upgrade grocery store Tinderella to a strong 6).


Why does this not happen automatically?
-Low standards by men. IIRC it was Helen Gurley-Brown who remarked, "men will schtupp mud." Considering what's pushing around baby strollers either, this is very true or they have some deep inner beauty... very deep.

-Some health problems - heart issues, breast cancer, alzheimers - tend to not appear until breeding selection and actvity has passed. If we were actively selecting for good traits, these would not be identified.

-Many (especially late in life) health issues also relate to environmental factors, so selection does not matter. Many we still have no idea about the real cause.

-Modern medicine and other technology is actually working to send us backwards. Not only do people with poor vision, for example, have glasses that allow them to avoid being culled by random accidents, they also have contact lenses so the defect is not evident during the mating phase.

-Similarly, modern techniques with cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, etc. hide the effects of poor genes during the mating phase.

-Similarly, we have welfare, medicare, etc. that allow the less capable to continue to reproduce, when social as well as medical circumstances might have limited the number or survivability of offspring. Also, we have birth control for the upper class, meaning the successful have more incentive and means to reduce their offspring which would cut into the lifestyle and toys they can have.

essentially the rule of thumb is probably that it's 50-50; so a not-so-smart person with a good education and training can outperform a smart lazy bastard.

-Success and more offspring does not correlate with smarts or fitness. Who is better suited for passing on their relatively lesser quality genes? Trump seems to have more children than Einstein...

word but again im strictly talking physical in my selection process lol. i'm disregarding pretty much everything else. i wasn't thinking about predisposition to ailments/diseases or anything, im just talking about building better humans from a physical sense. the same way when you selectively breed dogs to get an ugly english bulldog, your not worried about its health or lifespan as much as you want it to look like it does. great danes might be a better analogy in the sense they are bred to be giants, they aren't fat either they're just beasts who live like 6-8 years tops lol. sure we could look at all dogs and breed them for intelligence/health/lifespan etc. to make a "perfect dog" but where is the fun in that. lets just breed the biggest scariest coolest looking ones.

also i'm pretty sure the dumb/ugly breed at a way higher rate then the intelligent. im going off of my own dumb life experiences but the dumbest people i know have at least 2 kids. im not sure how it is in england but in america you get rewarded for being a piece of shit leech on the system. i know people who have more kids to get more free money every year. with every kid on your tax return your basically giving yourself more money at the end of the year, and you are also incentivized to make less money so you get more "food stamps" every month. my best friend from back in the day literally has 4 kids, they make MAYBE 15k a year on the books, but they get like 7 grand back in taxes when in reality they probably pay like 2 in tops. they get 600 a month in foodstamps, and sell half of them for actual cash, and he smashed his hand at work and lost a finger, so even though he's capable of working again he continues to leech the system through workers comp, gets free prescriptions to painkillers and sells the majority of them for more money

got a little off track there but word. the dumb and less "fortunate" have more incentive to breed

the problem is this worked in the past when we needed copious amounts of ditch diggers and assembly line shills, but with innovations in robotics and everything else, and the myth you need a college education to survive, there is nothing for these dummies to do.

which is why we should build a master athlete race and start a gigantic war. the dummy plebs can work in factories to feed the war machine and we can make america great again

[sral]

LOL my trouble with your theory is that I don't think slave breeding has ever involved the discipline required, was widespread enough, or continued for the generations necessary to alter the gene pool.

There are sperm banks that will sell you the sperm of a Nobel prize winner, but that doesn't guarantee anything. There are extremely few families where even two generations are outstanding at anything, and there's always the chance of a slip up--Johnny & Edgar Winters family had no professional musicians or albinos in it prior to them.

Then again, to come back to Yao Ming - his parents were actively encouraged to marry and have children. And look at him!

So sure, this is possible... as long as we remember that the "Scandinavian" class standards are arbitrary. So we can arbitrarily say that the Scandinavian breed should be over 6 feet, straight blonde hair, copious beard in males, blue eyes, straight nose, skin pale as milk, with an aggressive disposition and an instinct for boating and looting. And we could breed humans to conform to that standard, and after a few dozen generations we could get a breed that would breed true.

That doesn't change the fact that most real life Scandinavians wouldn't conform to that standard, the standard doesn't exist in real life, any more than the standard for Jack Russell Terriers means anything more than we've decided that Jack Russell Terriers should be small, white with spots, smooth coated and yippy. If we decided tomorrow that Jack Russell Terriers should be large, long-tailed, black coated and with copious drool, then that's what the standard would be.

The standard will change. The breed standards for humans would be attractive in their own way, but they would need to fit the standard for that group as well. "Mutts" such as people that have obviously mixed heritage are right out... even if they are stunningly attractive. This would exclude most people, especially those in North America and wherever Plot is from. We need the people that still appear as purebreds in the same way that dogs are; such as the white haired tall Scandinavians, the Chinese man with slight build and perfect eye slants, Resin and some almost purple skinned African tribesman for example. Vapeo This is fairly subjective of course but so is any concept of breeds that humans create.

[sral]

That said, Emperor uh-oh, I think genetic engineering would be a better end for you to work on in your plan of global domination - rather than selective breeding.

If you ever do make a success of it, please remember your favourite British counterpart. :^)

[uh-oh]

a simple look at an african from any african nation compared to basically any african american with ancestry tying back to slavery disproves your opinon. its taboo for scientists to look at racial differences, you'll be blackballed and deemed racist, because what motive is required to actually study such "miniscule" differences between the races? so you're not gonna find credited scientific studies and shit.

but if you think there is no evidence of physicality being passed on you're deluding yourself man

shaq knocked up a regular woman. his 16 year old son is already 7 ft tall. his 12 year old kid is 6'1. i'm 6'1. lmao.

to think selectively breeding for physicality won't show up is nonsense. if yao ming knocked up a 5'0 woman i would bet my life his kids would be at least 6'3.

again i think we have to be arguing for different points. maybe you are thinking im talking about making a new breed of humans altogether? i'm just talking about making giant athletic humans.

lebron james' kids are going to be freaks. because lebron james is a freak. if lebron knocked up serena williams their kid would probably be the greatest athlete of all time. granted its not guaranteed. maybe he'd be slow. but one thing is absolutely certain, he would be a physical specimen in some regard. height/stature.

slave breeding was more in line with getting "healthy" workers though. thats why they would inspect the teeth for instance. if your slave had bad teeth, it could die in those days from infection. you wanted a physically strong slave so he would have the endurance needed. they weren't breeding for size strictly.

the part jimmy the greek forgets is that while what he is saying was basically true, black africans are already superior runners to begin with, east africans are renowned for their endurance in marathons and the like. west africans are superior sprinters. this is all scientific fact.

again there are freaks from every culture but i'm talking in averages.

and you can absolutely find physical traits passed on from even 1 generation. physicality isn't as much of a crapshoot as trying to identify certain genes. like baldness or something. even though they basically tie that to your mothers father. etc

[uh-oh]

That said, Emperor uh-oh, I think genetic engineering would be a better end for you to work on in your plan of global domination - rather than selective breeding.

If you ever do make a success of it, please remember your favourite British counterpart. :^)

I GOT YOU

the ability to write multi syllable rhymes will be something that allows your genes to pass on.

[Amen]

Didn't Hitler attempt this, as well?

He was attempting to breed nazis?

Built like Ivan Drago with blond hair blue eyes?

[~RustyGunZ~]

Lol Santiago kids so beta

No one would ever breed them in uh ohs grand scheme

They'd be maintenance on the jizz vats

[sral]

a simple look at an african from any african nation compared to basically any african american with ancestry tying back to slavery disproves your opinon. its taboo for scientists to look at racial differences, you'll be blackballed and deemed racist, because what motive is required to actually study such "miniscule" differences between the races? so you're not gonna find credited scientific studies and shit.

but if you think there is no evidence of physicality being passed on you're deluding yourself man

shaq knocked up a regular woman. his 16 year old son is already 7 ft tall. his 12 year old kid is 6'1. i'm 6'1. lmao.

to think selectively breeding for physicality won't show up is nonsense. if yao ming knocked up a 5'0 woman i would bet my life his kids would be at least 6'3.

again i think we have to be arguing for different points. maybe you are thinking im talking about making a new breed of humans altogether? i'm just talking about making giant athletic humans.

lebron james' kids are going to be freaks. because lebron james is a freak. if lebron knocked up serena williams their kid would probably be the greatest athlete of all time. granted its not guaranteed. maybe he'd be slow. but one thing is absolutely certain, he would be a physical specimen in some regard. height/stature.

slave breeding was more in line with getting "healthy" workers though. thats why they would inspect the teeth for instance. if your slave had bad teeth, it could die in those days from infection. you wanted a physically strong slave so he would have the endurance needed. they weren't breeding for size strictly.

the part jimmy the greek forgets is that while what he is saying was basically true, black africans are already superior runners to begin with, east africans are renowned for their endurance in marathons and the like. west africans are superior sprinters. this is all scientific fact.

again there are freaks from every culture but i'm talking in averages.

and you can absolutely find physical traits passed on from even 1 generation. physicality isn't as much of a crapshoot as trying to identify certain genes. like baldness or something. even though they basically tie that to your mothers father. etc


lmao i'm agreeing with you bruh

Then again, to come back to Yao Ming - his parents were actively encouraged to marry and have children. And look at him!

So sure, this is possible...

One thing you're severely overlooking in your maniacal strides toward human perfection though is a little thing called "Regression to the mean"

You would have to pick the ones that conformed to your wishes and ONLY breed those.

Regression to the mean applies to a single generation in a "randomised" population and to complex traits. If, in a population with mostly brown eyed people, you bred two with blue eyes, all the kids would have blue eyes. And if vice versa you'd still have 75 % offspring with brown. No regression towards the mean. (If we pretend there are only blue and brown eyes and ignore all the genes we don't mention in high school biology.)

If you pick only those with 160 IQ to breed, the first generation will only have a small number of the super-intelligent, but they will have more super-intelligent than the population as a whole, and more of the highly intelligent, and intelligent, and more of the "average". Pick only the best from this new population and the third generation will be even "better".

Of course, for this to be successful, we have to prevent those not selected from breeding. Unless all you want to do is create a sub-group of humanity with unusual traits, it doesn't matter to you that the rejects are breeding somewhere outside your empire of intelligence/beauty/sports ability.

Probably the most famous study of selective breeding for mammalian behavior is the domestication of the silver fox.


The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the "domesticated elite," are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the tenth generation, 18 percent of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35 percent. Today elite foxes make up 70 to 80 percent of our experimentally selected population.

About 5% of males and 20% of females were allowed to breed.

The regression to the mean refers to the mean of the breeding population. If a new splinter population is created through selective breeding, reproductive isolation, runaway sexual selection, etc. then a new mean will be created (e.g. founder effect).

As an aside, and I don't know if this still has much pull in modern thinking, but one idea is that humans basically self-domesticated. This partially explains human neoteny and the increased willingness to cooperate with others, lessened aggressiveness compared to primate ancestors, etc.

One can only guess at what selective breeding could do for modern humans. There are physical limits. To the great consternation of mothers, we're about maxed out for skull size vs. birth canal circumference. People who are 7-8 feet tall have a lot of problems with their feet, knees, hearts, etc. It's interesting to wonder if you could breed passive cow-like humans (with us being the auroch). A big hit for futuristic totalitarian dystopias, I'm sure.

Selective breeding really does not depend on new genes coming into existence.

I think the focus on a trait like intelligence is maybe making the discussion more complicated than it needs to be, because we don't even know the extent to which genetics controls intelligence.

Go back to basic genetics. A gene codes for something like a protein product that produces a result in the final organism (the phenotype). Genes in a population exist in multiple versions - alleles. The paired nature of DNA means that an individual actually has two genes in most locations and it's possible to have two different alleles in the same individual.

But selective breeding looks at a whole population. There are many different alleles in the population - it could be dozens or hundreds. A natural population has a certain ratio of those alleles that mix around and generally reach some equilibrium. If you want allele #23 in your in your final breed, you can find two individuals in the population who have that and breed them. At least some of their offspring end up with 23. Eventually, you can get them to "breed true" where their DNA contains only allele 23 and nothing else.

For a single gene, you could accomplish this in a single generation. Two parents that are 23-? and 23-? will produce 1/4 of their offspring that are 23-23. If you can tell those apart, then you're done. Sometimes 23-? and 23-23 look identical (have the same phenotype) and that complicates things, because it means 1/4 of the offspring will be ?-?. That's one reason why establishing a stable breed is more difficult in real life than a single generation.

Of course, doing anything complicated also involves multiple genes. You don't go from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane with a single gene. The more genes you need to combine, the more generations you need until all the random combinations come out the way you want. Eventually, you reach your own equilibrium of alleles based on artificial selection rather than the equilibrium from nature that came from natural selection.

As far as returning to the median goes... most of the time, you haven't completely eliminate all of the old genes. Plus, the old genes can be put back into a population by breeding with wild species. Once you stop artificially selecting, then natural selection takes over again and you tend to wind up with the same equilibrium that the wild species had originally.

[Amen]

Lol Santiago kids so beta

No one would ever breed them in uh ohs grand scheme

They'd be maintenance on the jizz vats

Stfu faggot.

There is a reason why you have no kids.

Remember that, you waste of sperm.

[uh-oh]

lmao i'm agreeing with you bruh



One thing you're severely overlooking in your maniacal strides toward human perfection though is a little thing called "Regression to the mean"

You would have to pick the ones that conformed to your wishes and ONLY breed those.

Regression to the mean applies to a single generation in a "randomised" population and to complex traits. If, in a population with mostly brown eyed people, you bred two with blue eyes, all the kids would have blue eyes. And if vice versa you'd still have 75 % offspring with brown. No regression towards the mean. (If we pretend there are only blue and brown eyes and ignore all the genes we don't mention in high school biology.)

If you pick only those with 160 IQ to breed, the first generation will only have a small number of the super-intelligent, but they will have more super-intelligent than the population as a whole, and more of the highly intelligent, and intelligent, and more of the "average". Pick only the best from this new population and the third generation will be even "better".

Of course, for this to be successful, we have to prevent those not selected from breeding. Unless all you want to do is create a sub-group of humanity with unusual traits, it doesn't matter to you that the rejects are breeding somewhere outside your empire of intelligence/beauty/sports ability.

Probably the most famous study of selective breeding for mammalian behavior is the domestication of the silver fox.




About 5% of males and 20% of females were allowed to breed.

The regression to the mean refers to the mean of the breeding population. If a new splinter population is created through selective breeding, reproductive isolation, runaway sexual selection, etc. then a new mean will be created (e.g. founder effect).

As an aside, and I don't know if this still has much pull in modern thinking, but one idea is that humans basically self-domesticated. This partially explains human neoteny and the increased willingness to cooperate with others, lessened aggressiveness compared to primate ancestors, etc.

One can only guess at what selective breeding could do for modern humans. There are physical limits. To the great consternation of mothers, we're about maxed out for skull size vs. birth canal circumference. People who are 7-8 feet tall have a lot of problems with their feet, knees, hearts, etc. It's interesting to wonder if you could breed passive cow-like humans (with us being the auroch). A big hit for futuristic totalitarian dystopias, I'm sure.

Selective breeding really does not depend on new genes coming into existence.

I think the focus on a trait like intelligence is maybe making the discussion more complicated than it needs to be, because we don't even know the extent to which genetics controls intelligence.

Go back to basic genetics. A gene codes for something like a protein product that produces a result in the final organism (the phenotype). Genes in a population exist in multiple versions - alleles. The paired nature of DNA means that an individual actually has two genes in most locations and it's possible to have two different alleles in the same individual.

But selective breeding looks at a whole population. There are many different alleles in the population - it could be dozens or hundreds. A natural population has a certain ratio of those alleles that mix around and generally reach some equilibrium. If you want allele #23 in your in your final breed, you can find two individuals in the population who have that and breed them. At least some of their offspring end up with 23. Eventually, you can get them to "breed true" where their DNA contains only allele 23 and nothing else.

For a single gene, you could accomplish this in a single generation. Two parents that are 23-? and 23-? will produce 1/4 of their offspring that are 23-23. If you can tell those apart, then you're done. Sometimes 23-? and 23-23 look identical (have the same phenotype) and that complicates things, because it means 1/4 of the offspring will be ?-?. That's one reason why establishing a stable breed is more difficult in real life than a single generation.

Of course, doing anything complicated also involves multiple genes. You don't go from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane with a single gene. The more genes you need to combine, the more generations you need until all the random combinations come out the way you want. Eventually, you reach your own equilibrium of alleles based on artificial selection rather than the equilibrium from nature that came from natural selection.

As far as returning to the median goes... most of the time, you haven't completely eliminate all of the old genes. Plus, the old genes can be put back into a population by breeding with wild species. Once you stop artificially selecting, then natural selection takes over again and you tend to wind up with the same equilibrium that the wild species had originally.

any single man could essentially impregnate every single woman on earth. one load can have like 500 million sperm in it. there would be no worries about dilluting the gene pool

[~RustyGunZ~]

Stfu faggot.

There is a reason why you have no kids.

Remember that, you waste of sperm.

What's that reason lol

[NYCSPITZ]

Let's do it.

Lol @ grown men trying to belittle my kids.

Sad life you live.

aren't u from queens? TO test your progeny and their extrapolated athletic ability I suggest we play handball, I haven't played in a while. You got left to 2 at the court of your choice or straight up for $500.

[Amen]

hand ball lol

that's a throwback for ya'

[Chamber]

Lmaoo at dicknoze smh wtf?

[Amen]

Lmaoo at dicknoze smh wtf?

this nigga diode couldn't resist to change my name lol.

[Vapeo]

lmfao if lebron knocked up serena williams....

[TeckNeek]

this is beyond me? probly why i cant concur. go on. im just a irish italian imbreeded dumbshit.. continue.