Forum:Matchmaking service for the master races

< Index | General discussion

We should stop dilly dallying and make some master races. Multicultural ones, of course. Maybe some offspringers would be made to be more intellectual, while others are more inclined to healthy physical labor, etc. That isn't to say they should be locked into their planned roles; they could choose what they want to do if they are qualified.

I've been approached a few times by people wanting to procreate. I think, gee there must be some walking gonads out there with all my beauty and brilliance, and less of the physical/mental diseases. Sperm banks are so expensive and there are millions of above-average guys just throwing the little ones to the tissues, drains, condoms, etc. Hear them crying, "Where do we go? I don't like this light stuff. It's getting c'c'c'cold!" That unpleasant nutty smell in your trashcan is murder! Think of the lesbian lesbians (the unbi). People are so lazy about finding partners. "Oh I guess I'll just get together with this person because I happened to meet them at the..." Wouldn't it be better to look at all available options and narrow it down to the best you can? We should be planning this stuff in primary schools and speed dating them so they have gone through all their partner options by the time they are good to go. Often people with really good genes are too shy to make babies. They need to be told those genes are valuable and arrangements could be made if they are willing. People shouldn't make babies with the same genes as them, they should make babies with the best genes they can find. People who are well fit to raise a child and want a new one, should be given the best one possible by whatever means (sperm donation, surrogate mothering, etc).

Facts:

Commercial sperm banks typically only accept men between the ages of 21 and 38 because for men over 40 (like women's eggs) their sperm is more at risk for chromosomal abnormalities[1] Time's a wasting.

~ Lumenos (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ace! Lumenos got into your meth stash again. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, me br/other. I have plenty of neurotransmitters on reserve and all synapses are fully "functional" (in that regard). Insomnia and sensory deprivation might explain somethings however I'm pretty sure I usually think this way. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That is Jack Hughes with the squeak and run. The idea of genetic improvement is not worthy of reason, here at "Rational"Wiki. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. See Eugenics. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Eugenics is not a valid science. Most human traits are multifactorial, and simple breeding cannot reinforce or diminish their frequency. Furthermore, it usually seems to be carried out for racist reasons instead of genetic ones." Simple breeding OBVIOUSLY influences many traits. Have you somehow convinced yourself otherwise? I've not studied it but I would bet that IQ has a large genetic component.

Is it bad racism if you are always trying to create new or improved "breeds"/"races" by mixing them? Maybe most dog breeders are more concerned with maintaining certain superficial traits; this is why there is a need to promote the idea of (at least sometimes) mixing breeds to improve genetic health. Same is true of human breeding, most procreate within their races, often for superficial reasons and often ignoring genetics. If mixing races, one would want the best genes from both races. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"IQ has a large genetic component" — Any actual evidence for this? Cubic time Hoover! 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As humans are usually smarter than chimps, I would say clearly yes. Perhaps the topic that was meant to be addressed was whether the variation of intelligence / IQ in humans is strongly correlated with genetics, epigenetics, or environment. There, I do not know. However, evolution is true, we are smarter than chimps, and so it follows that, all other things being equal, selecting for IQ will raise IQ. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Although this is a tricky issue it would seem to be obvious that we are the product of our genes and by selective breeding we could produce individuals with any enhanced genetically controlled characteristic we care to chose. It obviously works for animals and and plants and we do it all the time - why shouldn't it work for humans? Are we biologically special in some way would prevent it happening? The real problem with eugenics in my opinion is that it dehumanises the idea of being human.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 16:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

wp:Heritability of IQ.

^narchist 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Too many people let "racial chauvinists" define "eugenics", instead of embracing genetic improvement as one of the most important human endeavors. (Seems it goes hand in hand with sexual repression.) Racial chauvinists do the dehumanizing, or the super-humanizing of superficial characteristics that are unique to their "race".

As for the mind-body problem, if we are completely physical or have no free will, this is and always has been "human". Acknowledging this is acknowledging our humanity. ~ Lumenos (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but here is a claim, '"Harden and colleagues (2007) found a similar gene-environment interaction for adolescents.[91] They found that, among higher income families, genetic influences accounted for approximately 55% of the variance in cognitive aptitude and shared environmental influences about 35%. Among lower income families, the proportions were in the reverse direction, 39% genetic and 45% shared environment.""[2]

What I would rather talk about is dogs because then the political prejudices should be removed from the equation. Wouldn't you think that many dog traits are inherited? Some dogs being good protectors, some being good detectors, etc? ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Inherited or not you are implying that "intelligent" equals "good". It's not the science that makes this so abhorrent, it's the underlying ethics, or lack of them. You think you're so superior because you have a high IQ? Ugh. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You deny the human race is superior because of its intelligence? You do not deserve children. --109.240.110.11 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I deny that the human race is "superior". I abhor those who measure human worth by intelligence. The values I'm proud of in my son are his compassion, his humanity, not his high grades at school. Saying that "intelligent" genes are good implies that those with lower IQs are "bad". What's the next step, compulsory sterilisation for those of low IQ?. OK, so you can accuse me of the slippery slope fallacy but the thinking is just the same. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So, in your view, intelligence is a completely irrelevant quality in people? Cubic time Hoover! 23:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a slippery slope argument as any form of eugenics (on a grander scale) would necessitate the ability for the breed to control who doesn't breed as much as who does. But, as Stephen Hawking said; "people who brag about their IQ are losers".

^narchist 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, going back to Luminos's high IQ sperm bank, would women of low IQ be turned away as unworthy recipients? Jack Hughes (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't be the point, as those woman would still be allowed to breed; just not with the "high IQ" sperm. The issue becomes whether you should prevent them breeding in order for your "high IQ sperm bank" to make a meaningful contribution.

^narchist 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you want to decrease the population, there's little sense in not allowing the female population to have children. It doesn't take a large percentage of the best males to provide for the whole humanity. Women are the bottleneck, so it's a service to mankind if they can and want to dedicate their years to being baby machines. It's not immoral, the same people are still allowed to have children, just not their own in the strict sense. --109.240.110.11 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The "best" males. And how exactly are you going to determine who falls into that category? Let me guess, you're one of them. Any body choosing who can breed with whom is, de facto, immoral. The simple implication that you grade people is, de facto, immoral. Oh brave new world that has such people in it. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You are just loving the status quo. (I'm sure you are hating the incest laws with all you've got) Well fear not, because there are traits that are nearly universally agreed to be good, and traits agreed to be bad. Surely persons who have all the good ones and none of the bad ones can be agreed, as a matter of rhetoric, to be the "best"? --194.215.122.193 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You must be trolling. Foolish me for falling for it. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am trolling with the truth, rationalwikian. --194.215.122.193 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you allow me to take the role of the friendly local transhumanism fanboy, my opinion regarding the subject is: Meh.

All human races are going to be by default inferior to the products of a civilization with perfect biological mastery. No products of eugenics will ever be able to compete with a Transhuman. No current master race will ever be able to compete with a Transhuman. So why even bother?

Eugenics might have been useful a couple of centuries ago, but to me it sounds like a quaint luddite idea, which is about to be outcompeted and become obsolete by much more interesting upcoming technologies like perfect computational genomics, synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, that will be bringing perfect control of the vessel of our conciousness under man's will. Its like investing in shoe repairing as a profession right before large scale cheap footwear fabrication.

I don't find it interesting voluntary not being allowed to fuck people I like, just in order to bring (possibly, maybe) a nose within specifications some generations afterwards. Figure out the nose genes. Figure out gene-rewriting viruses, and then you will be able to get any nose you damn like off the supermarket shelves. That's true power and progress. Liberation over self-deprecation. IQ? Who cares about +- 10 points. Figure brain-computer interface, and make a wireless connection to a huge neural network cloud computing farm and you will have so much IQ compared to anything an eugenicist can do, you won't know what to do with it, that's something to actually strive for.

To sum up. Eugenics advocates for a reduction of individual freedom for a benefit that doesn't even go to yourself, when the main point of science and technology that gets people engaged is the increase of it. People aren't interested in being told that they can go around a rock blocking the path the long way. They want to blast that fucker with dynamite. I think that Eugenics is a bit miserable in its outlook, demanding a massive voluntary social-political change, when Transhumanism is a genuinely optimistic position that gets people interested and tells them that not only they can eat their pie, but also have the pie AND a delicious chocolate crepe. The first demands people doing something (controlling themselves), while the second demands people simply not to stand in the way of technology advancing. Sen (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that is just your definition of eugenics. I'm not advocating for forcing anything on anyone. "Voluntary not being allowed" is a contradiction. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to voluntarily use birth control or that my desire to only have offspring intentionally, is a defective value? You know, if you are homosexual, it is no big sacrifice ; ) (other than that the uberpeople should keep themselves free of infections). Maybe if I lived in a society where "forced eugenics" was commonly practiced, I would not think it any more repressive than laws against incestuous procreation. But I don't, so it is strange that some interpreted me that way when I didn't say anything about changing the rest of humanity, other than by this sort of (attempted) persuasion.

"I don't find it interesting voluntary not being allowed to fuck people I like,"

You mean without birth control? You are opposed to birth control, and consider it an obstacle to your freedom?

How do you know that "eugenics" would be opposed to you having all the offspring you could? Would these be women who are likely to get pregnant by someone else, if not you?

Could they be persuaded to find someone with better genetics or other important factors such as that the sperm "donor" would support a child if she needed/wanted that? Assuming they could, I would rather they do that because I just find that more benevolent and appealing. If they still want to have sex with me also, yippy! Does this compel you to voluntarily consider the same? I hope not! That wouldn't be right. To use an out of fashion term (or to use a term out of fashion) I think of it as part of true love.

There is also the perhaps minor issue that contraception also prevents most infections.

"Eugenics might have been useful a couple of centuries ago, but to me it sounds like a quaint luddite idea, which is about to be outcompeted and become obsolete by much more interesting upcoming technologies like perfect computational genomics, synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, that will be bringing perfect control of the vessel of our conciousness under man's will. Its like investing in shoe repairing as a profession right before large scale cheap footwear fabrication. "

It is more like investing in building the best shoes we can now. Assuming we are doing it right, these should be the "shoes" that develop genetic engineering. Can't you see the direct connection between "eugenics" and the development process of GE? By definition those with the good genes, will be developing this technology.

Humanity also has to survive and maintain an increasingly advancing culture for long enough to develop GE. So maybe selective breeding will get us there a little faster (before a few nuclear winters or something). Maybe a germ will wipe out humanity first.

What if humans become so selfish that the breeding rate falls and falls? What if first some much more pleasurable technology is popularized, such as wireheading and the wireheaders realize that everyone who isn't a wirehead is insane and they launch a campaign to forcefully hook everyone up, then no one procreates and everyone lives happily ever after (for all they know)? I think I saw that one on the Sci Fi channel also.

If you have any intention to raise any children, you could at least calculate the cost benefits of little things like impacted molars. If you would want a GE kid, why wouldn't you want one from parents who had the best genes as far as you could tell? Wouldn't you value eugenics for the same reason? If you don't care about that, then why would you care if humanity ever got there? You are basically saying you like the idea of genetic improvement, but it is not worth the inconvenience of birth control (if it will hopefully happen eventually, no help from you).

~ Lumenos (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Various quotes and replies[edit]

"What's the next step, compulsory [sterilization] for those of low IQ?. OK, so you can accuse me of the slippery slope fallacy but the thinking is just the same. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)"

The next step would be making sterilization or child removal, a requirement for welfare derived by compulsory taxation, for those who create more children than anyone volunteers to pay for. But plenty of people (or animals) with low IQ are able to survive or thrive, without requiring the blood of tax slaves. Instead of hiring mothers to have more babies (they get more money the more babies they have, up to a point) perhaps the citizens should vote on what genetic qualities they want to pay for. Or people who want to adopt (but don't wish to pay thousands of dollars for a surrogate) could pay a poor woman and a poor man, who have pretty good genetics, to use his semen to create them a child (they may or may not have sex). There shouldn't be a taboo around the "commercialization", per se; there should be a taboo regarding placing superficial ("racist") qualities, over important qualities. That said, I don't think there should be laws against favoring superficial qualities, so long as they don't unreasonably increase the risk of genetic disease (as may be the case with certain dog breeds). ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"I abhor those who measure human worth by intelligence. The values I'm proud of in my son are his compassion, his humanity, not his high grades at school."

Then you shouldn't have to pay for welfare moms who are attracted to men mainly for their intelligence. I bet sociopathic/empathetic qualities have a significant genetic component. Environment is very important for that also. For example, the long-term denial of physical pleasure can be more traumatizing than periods of violent abuse. Many taboos surrounding sexual pleasure and designer babies, are not healthy. Sexual art/literature/cinema may include both eroticism and information or thought provoking ideas or scenarios. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"The "best" males. And how exactly are you going to determine who falls into that category? Let me guess, you're one of them."

Firstly, being free of what are established genetic disease. Right now people often choose sex partners based on superficial attractiveness. That is fine, so long as recreational sex is separated from procreation with birth control techniques. People who are educated about genetics will be more inclined to choose qualities that are important. Aren't you interested to know the role of genetics influencing empathy? Nothing wrong with that. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't take a large percentage of the best males to provide for the whole humanity. Women are the bottleneck, so it's a service to mankind if they can and want to dedicate their years to being baby machines." --109.240.110.11 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the bottleneck are people willing to bear and raise children. People like sex more than child rearing and therefore create "unwanted" pregnancies. People who abuse or neglect their children should be encourage to give them to those who want them, rather then made to feel it is their duty to be slaves to their offspring.

Questions of what populations we should try to increase or decrease, are vital. This was sadly missing from my educational program so I know little about it. For those who believe global warming is on the verge of creating a major catastrophe, this must weigh heavily on a (subconscious) desire to decrease the population of those who cannot be trained or persuaded, to lower their emissions. We should stop stigmatizing the discussion, and get these things out in the open where they can be subjected to peer review. It is because eugenics is not embraced by the mainstream that "racist" groups are able to use it to promote racial chauvinism. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

God you talk a lot of bollocks. Then you shouldn't have to pay for welfare moms who are attracted to men mainly for their intelligence. What has that got to do with the price of fish. I do not object to paying for welfare moms - and the ones I know are not attracted to men mainly for their intelligence - or why do nerds do so badly when out clubbing on a Friday night. Jack Hughes (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It has to do with compulsory legal requirements whether they be sterilizations or taxations. If you are fine with supporting someone, you could donate to them. This shouldn't be compulsory for those of us who want more control of the fruit of our labor, and our cultural/national/family inheritance.

On a different topic, you confuse intelligence with IQ or SAT scores. Nerds aren't getting any, mainly due to lack of social intelligence. That's what makes us nerds! I met a fregan gorgeous college couple; one claimed to be a nerd. Preposterous! Many self-identify as "nerds", when really they mean they are intellectual. They just don't want to say so because that sounds like evil superiority. The ability to seduce is a highly valuable skill and highly dangerous when not tempered with education or compassion. ~ Lumenos (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a topic of great interest to me, but also of great personal disappointment. I am a man with an IQ of 151.6 (based on a calculation corresponding to my high score on the Miller Analogies Test), which (I have been told) is shared by only 3 out of every 10,000 people in the general population. I am also unusually physically robust and I've been told by many people that I'm good looking. I come from a family of intelligent, robust and good-looking people. I have always wanted to be married and to father children, but it just never came to be. Out of all the women I dated in my youth, only two of them were interested in having children - one of them broke up with me, and the other one is my current partner of many years, but she is too old to have children, unfortunately. So what is to happen to my good genes? It looks like they will go with me into my grave after I die and be totally wasted. I have looked into sperm banks, but I am too old for them (in my mid-50's). So what am I to do? Any suggestions, anyone? Please, nothing insulting or sarcastic, only serious answers. Woodsman (talk)

You forgot to say "shit was so cash". Wéáśéĺóíď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As someone else who has been fortuitous in life but never (knowingly) fathered offspring (my wife was not able to conceive when I met her) I don't really give a shit about promulgating my genes; there are far too many people in the world already, so contributing to the global population problem seems like quite a vain thing to do, although I realise that there is an evolutionary imperative. I have concluded that it is much better for me to leave something of worth behind me when I finally shuffle off this mortal coil and will bequeath my estate to medical and educational causes.

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.}

18:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Feminist eugenics[edit]

Suppose all men were made to donate to a global sperm bank. When a woman wanted to have a child, she would be represented with an anonymized list of donors to choose from. This would greatly reduce the incidence of genetic diseases, many of which cost the society huge sums of money, and would reduce many other problems (e.g. vision). It would also be more just than the current system, since the women have more freedom and men hardly lose any. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am a machine built to propagate my genes. Not yours, not society's best, mine. That's what I'm built to do, that is my purpose, my raison d'etre. This is why I want to have my children with my genes. Any other arrangement, whether rational or not, simply won't be acceptable. End of. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I make new LiquidForum to reply to Jack. ~ Lumenos (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You selfish sexist. You have no more right to fantasize about evolution than any other man. Women should not let the system force them to contend with inferior fathers, because women are going through all the trouble. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If any woman wants to go to a sperm bank she's more than welcome. I've no problem with that whatsoever. However, my partner and I decided, together, that we would both like to propagate our genes, together, as a joint process, together. I guess she decided I would not be an inferior father the day that she married me.

Which, actually, brings us to the point. Women are already choosing superior fathers for their children. They do it in the old fashioned way by choosing who they shag. Why then the need for sperm banks. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Women are merely choosing attractive available males. The ideal of having children of a person you are in a "relationship" with is superficial. Sperm banks are needed to destroy that false ideal, also because it's sort of rape and dangerous if you force people to have unprotected sex. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The ideal of having children of a person you are in a "relationship" with is superficial. Come our from your mother's basement and meet some girls and you'll see what a fatuous statement that is. When my wife married me she chose me because, in her eyes I was both the person she wanted to walk down life's highway with and the person whose genes she wished on any children. In the vast majority of cases these tend to be the same thing. She also chose me for my (assumed) parenting skills which is another major factor . I think it's safe to assume most women don't want to be single mothers. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what color the sky is on BoN's planet... In other news, my son, contemplating his brand-new niece, observed that "kids I'm related to are cuter than random ones." Deny that and lose all connection with your messy organic complex humanity. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Your wife sounds like crazy and/or stupid. Although I guess there's a possibility you are an uber-male and you studied compatibility from the children POV. Under the new system women would not need to be single mothers, it wouldn't be much different from what adoption is right now. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, women are flawed in the means by which they select their mates. If they selected their mates according to unbiased methods, they would choose BoN 62. He is a very nice man, unlike those handsome jerks ~~Susie~~ women insist on dating.

Keep your misogyny to yourself. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd make a more serious response, but I don't think anything written by the new eugenics league here warrants it. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You are so oppressed you are starting to like the butthurt. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's a troll - but I'm having fun watching the nonsense he spouts. SJC's son put it nicely. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "troll", you don't think he or I are sincere? ~ Lumenos (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

*shrug* I thought that was going on already? There are sperm banks and you can choose from anonymous donor, complete with basic characteristics selection and everything. Sen (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a trivial idea, but there's a stigma founded in misbelief that causes it to be shouted down. I bet if we ran a questionnaire few would have even heard about it. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Was that English, what you just said?

Somewhere around the turn of the century a lesbian couple of my acquaintance had a child. They chose the sperm donor based on his profile's perceived similarity to the non-child-bearing partner. The kid turned out to be cute and lovable. I haven't seen him since he could string three words together; perhaps it is time to re-connect. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't play with my schizophrenia. Lesbians wanted a child and got one. I am unamused by your anecdote. For an average straight woman the only decent thing is to have your partner's child, there are no other options. Everybody knows about sperm banks, few would consider them. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you were to blow me right now, would the germ plasm be of use to anyone? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent question, really more to the point of this thread. But I think it would be closer to the required audience, if you placed it at any number of (other) social networking sites, where it may be read by more local women/couples who are looking to get pregnant (or sperm donor scouts like myself). Would you like to fill out a questionnaire?

Plasma you say? Is it good for something other than procreation? As a food, it would seem not worth the risk of transmitting an infection. ~ Lumenos (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear me. Lumenos, up to just now you were doing so well, but how am I supposed to give your bona fides any credence without seeing a demonstration of basic RTFP skills? Plasma is something you find inside lit fluorescent tubes, or sometimes in war movies from the 1940s, when medics used bags of the stuff. None of those pesky antigens in it, you see, a panacea for all blood types. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does that bother you? In cases where their partner has a known genetic disease, maybe they might consider a sperm bank; or they might choose to have their partner's child anyway, which should be their own choice & not "the society"'s. & Couples without known genetic diseases & reproductive problems are always going to choose to have their own children rather than some anonymous sperm donor's. Why should it be otherwise? Wēāŝēīōīď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There isn't justification for risking a child's quality of life for no reason. The thing is a doctor can always find something bad to say. Why shouldn't you aim for the best outcome possible? It's hard to know what's hereditary and what's environmental and what's bad statistics, but that's no excuse for not trying. It's her choice but she needs to be educated to be able to make a decision. --62.142.167.144 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How about incestuous procreation? I thought the "rational" justification for forbidding adult incest, was basically eugenics. ~ Lumenos (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we had the same thought at the same time.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 20:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I guess you didn't see that. ; ) ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘All this heady discussion has little to do with how babies are actually made. Another anecdote: single mom remarries, both of them with plenty of school smarts. Just have to have a kid of their own, even though Mom is "elderly." In this context that means mid to late thirties. Guess what? Kid comes out with an extra chromosome and funny-looking eyes and ears. Sweet kid all the same, only high-maintenance. People do what they do, and no number of sermons nor amount of legislation will make much of a dent in that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Low-maintenance?!?!?!

Then why you bother, Preachaman? ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there is something to be said of the advantages of less intelligence. "Intelligence" coupled with other personality traits can be very dangerous. How low-maintenance was Hitler?!?!?! ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Godwin placement is premature. My point was that a fairly head-smart couple succumbed to the drive to produce offspring of their very own even when the risk was well-known to be high. They are now living with that choice, or maybe not. ISTR hearing that they had split up. Life, she is a complicate. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh well if smart people are doing it...

Everyone has their limit as to how much risk is acceptable and which consequences are undesirable enough to advocate some sort of deterrent. What if the child came out with their ears on their cheeks? Still lovable, right? How about if someone wanted to give their kid a drug that had the same odds of making them perma-retarded? That's bad for you, right? Being that I am a "consequentialist", the two hypotheticals are the same, because they risk the same consequence (retardation) and the motive was simply the parental whim. So where do you draw the line? ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

By calling the consequences the same (Down's syndrome, in the case I mentioned, and unspecified "retardation" in your bullshit hypothetical) you fail to connect with the particulars of life as it actually happens. You are pushing verbal generalities, big whoop. Worse, calling the motive parental "whim" is a loaded mischaracterization.

How do you feel about the MMR vaccine? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the first half of that if it made sense. "the incidence of Down syndrome increases from 1 in 10,000 for 20 year old mothers to about 3 in 1,000 for 35 year old mothers and 1 in 100 for 40 year old mothers"[3] It seems you would rather avoid many hypotheticals with technicalities.

Should vaccines for communicable infections be mandatory? (wp:HPV vaccine is a current example although it apparently requires "sexual" contact.) It comes down to the evidence that the vaccine is in the public interest and whether it is politically possible. I don't know about the specifics, but perhaps that answers your question. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment from the master races.[edit]

1) Miaow.

2) Pro-cre-ate!!! Pro-cre-ate!!!

(Add as required) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding incest[edit]

I was reading somewhere here a suggestion that incest laws were introduced in order to avoid matching bad recessive genes (or something of that nature). While I doubt that the framers of the laws were actually thinking in those terms as such, that was the presumably the idea - or more likely societies noticed over time that such pairings produced sickly offspring and that created a taboo which subsequently translated itself into law.
But the thing that occurred to me is this. Whereas the idea of eugenics is usually about ensuring that some desirable trait is selected for it can presumably work in the other way as well. Breeding for the avoidance of the appearance of bad recessives.
Which leaves me to wonder if laws against against incest could be considered, in the broadest sense, to be a type of eugenics?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 20:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Bob. In other news it seems that inbreeding doesn't introduce genetic defects, it only brings them out. When it comes to cheap animals, inbreeding is an easy way to see if there are any recessive genetic defects. Or maybe the defect might be difficult to see, but by later crossbreeding shouldn't these defects only be lessened? Then if abortion is okay maybe infanticide is not so bad... Anyway, we are talking about homo sapien sapien so, getting back on topic... ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that just about all genomes have recessives. I wasn't suggesting that they were created by inbreeding - only concentrated and more likely to be expressed. Having said that, by careful out breeding it should be possible to reduce their frequency. For instance attempts are being made to reduce the rates of hip dysplasia in highly inbred strains of German Shepherd dogs.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 21:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you were suggesting that. I just brought it up to get things moving. I'm a bit frustrated that even seemingly obvious things we have to debate... or semantics.

All genomes have recessives? Recessive diseases you mean?

One day I would like to breed muscovies, so I would need to understand genetics. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Danger - simplified explanation! All genomes have recessive genes. We have two pairs of every gene (without getting into the X and y chromosome). We get one from our mother and one from our father. Genes can be either dominant or recessive. If they are dominant they will work. If they are recessive they will leave the work to the dominant gene. Having two genes is cool as this is a good backup system as it means that if one gene is faulty then the good one can still do what it needs to do. But it only works if the good gene is dominant and the bad gene is recessive. If the bad gene is dominant and bad enough then you just die so bad genes which keep getting passed on tend to be both bad and recessive. Incest increases the chances of two bad recessive genes coming together. Not all recessive genes are bad though. Blue eyes are recessive for instance.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 17:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just laws that prohibit incest - biology tries too. Any genes that will repel incestuous relationships tend to be more successful because they are less likely to wind up in the offspring of related parents, where they will likely be doomed to die of disease or physical defects. That's one possible reason for why we find incest to be disgusting - but this reaction is not universal and could be argued to arise from society's taboos, so it's pretty weak. But there are other studies covering other concepts. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are apparently forms of instinctual imprinting that aren't specifically for "incest" but that the people who young children are around become sexually unattractive to them for the rest of their lives. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Westermark effect is the key here. We have natural anti-incest adaptations and avoid it naturally, but since info on genetic similarity is not available perceptually the adapted system uses exposure during certain periods of life. The question becomes why the anti-incest laws came into place? It seems most of these laws were put into place to avoid marriages with in certain higher classes of the society that tried to keep resources in the family by marrying cousins and the like through arranged marriages. It isn't that without the law we would all be married to our sisters, but rather the laws are a manifestation of a particular cultural, economic and political system. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that incest taboos are almost universal in human societies - (note almost). Do you really think the same generalised cultural explanation would generate such a universal taboo?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 17:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Incest avoidance is an adaptation, ala the Westermark effect. We don't need laws to prevent people from doing things with strong evolved negative responses. We don't need laws to prevent people from eating sewage, or a law to force people to pursue sex. The question is, if we have anti-incest adaptations why do we have laws against incest? That is where the cultural issue comes in. Incest marriages usually occur only within a very specific subset of circumstances, most notably in certain high socio-economic classes where arranged marriages of close relatives are used to maintain wealth with in the family. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I do not think "info on genetic similarity is not available perceptually" is quite accurate here. Gross phenotypic differences are of course perceptible. There may even be a scholarly nomenclature for the effect of preferring a partner who seems different from one's immmediate kin or clan. I have seen at least one marriage hit the rocks after the novelty wore off, and the little cultural or stylistic differences started to grate.

Further, there may be subliminal "perceptions" (if they may be properly called so) at the level of pheromone chemistry. (I have had people seriously try to tell me that pheromones are imperceptible. Some aren't, and some are. Age and gender can make a difference in level of sensitivity.)

Some eusocial insects have been shown to be able to make fine distinctions of consanguinuity using chemical cues. Can't chase a ref for you just now, left that collection of books behind years ago. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure there are some cues available, such as MHC genes that have been shown to be processed olfactorial in humans. However, while there are likely adaptations related to these perceptual cues their effect pales in comparison to the Westermark effect. The Westermark effect is simple in its conception and something easily accessible via selection filters. Individuals you have ample exposure to in childhood have significantly decreased sexual appeal. A lot of research has been done on adoption and incest avoidance effects when filling out the Westermark hypothesis. Adopted siblings show the same level of incest avoidance as genetic related kin. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Race or races[edit]

In reply to this comment (Lumenos: it wasn't master "race" it was "races". Multicultural ones, at that.): So what? What's your point? That racial hierarchies are OK if they're "multicultural" & if there are multiple "races" in the top slot?

Bullshit. Having a people or peoples designated as "master races" is not desirable or positive, regardless of whether you draw the racial lines along ethnic, cultural or caste lines, or on some arbitrary factor such as intelligence measures or physical strength. Weaseloid ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How about known genetic diseases?

What is the purpose of this website if not to draw a distinction between rational and irrational culture? You don't think genetics plays a role in one's ability to reason? ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The purposes of this website are spelled out clearly on its front page. Racial purification isn't one of them. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Purity"? Is that what they are calling it these days? Do we talk of the purity of the string bean genome?

You said "culture", but that's alright, you don't have to answer the second question. You'll have more friends that way.

"MOAR HITLER!!" You make me giggle again. I was a little scared that his unholy name would bring the bats, so it was a relief. You have restored the jovial atmosphere. Now I know I'm back home. <retard smile> ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

About "multiple races in the top slot". I guess that is one possibility, like animal breeders seem to think is ideal (I don't know why). I guess this is why dog breeds "exist" and "races" do not exist. You have authorities on what the proper dog breeds are but the "experts" on what the proper human breeds are, supposedly are not trusted in the current world order. Is it really good for dogs to be inbreeding them so much? Seems like show breeders put as much emphasis on superficial appearance features as "important" things like intelligence or genetic "purity" (from disease). I was more suggesting that by mixing races we might make better "races". The "master race" will never be finished, so we may always need to be mixing them. Like, "Here is ubermyn #2382. Eir ancestors have 12 different ethnic backgrounds. This master race contains 18 members in 12 global locations. There are 38912 more master races to browse." <smirk> Get it? <elbow nudge> I guess less "diversity" might have it's advantages. I dunno. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Breeding for roles, but oh shucks no the roles are not mandatory[edit]

"Multicultural ones, of course. Maybe some offspringers would be made to be more intellectual, while others are more inclined to healthy physical labor, etc. That isn't to say they should be locked into their planned roles; they could choose what they want to do if they are qualified."

You realize you are quite mad, right? I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just retarded. You want to breed people for specific roles, but you don't think there'll be a great pressure to fulfill those "roles"? Why not go full Brave New World and purposefully stunt brain growth via lack of oxygen in development for those "destined" for manual labor jobs? This is insane. I am not for creating a slave race, and that is exactly what's going to happen if follow up on this idea. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just change the title of this thread to "Godwin's law" and get it over with. It reminds me of the scene in "iron sky" where the creepy Nazi says to his girlfriend

"Good news, we can get married! Our genes are a 99% match!" (I forgot the exact words). Or maybe the part from " triumph of the Daleks" where the new (colour coded) Dalek castes are revealed. At least I think that was what the episode was called. --At (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, that moment when you say to a girl "I'm sorry, butI cannot procreate with you because your genes are wrong". If fact, the entire idea of taking genetic samples to determinate who to have kids with is trés creepy.

--At (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

or, y'know, just ignore stupid forums that haven't been updated for ages. Sophie^Wilder 19:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is jut too good of an opportunity to mock something to pass up. This is an endless opportunity to snark at the expense of eugenics. The comparisons I posted earlier were only a few examples of everything I came up with upon reading this. I could fill a book with all of the insults that popped into my head while I read this bilge. ( I mean the guy who started the thread's gibberish, of course.)

--At (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

He posted this thread over two years ago & hasn't been at RW regularly in over a year. It's not a particularly good opportunity. Wėąṣėḷőįď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Now that the fool who started this is gone, I can mock him all I want without him bothering me.

--At (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What a satisfying and fulfilling life you must lead. Sophie^Wilder 08:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I know! (Grins)

--At (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Prepare yourself for secondary lumenation[edit]

"You want to breed people for specific roles, but you don't think there'll be a great pressure to fulfill those "roles"? Why not go full Brave New World and purposefully stunt brain growth via lack of oxygen in development for those "destined" for manual labor jobs? This is insane. I am not for creating a slave race, and that is exactly what's going to happen if follow up on this idea."

Rather than accusations of having political wants let's refer to these as observations of facts about the universe. Exactly what will happen can be clearly seen upon my crystal balls. You claim to have a different reading on yours. Fair enough, but let's look at the facts. People choose who to procreate with or which pets to buy. It is an absolutely established fact that nonhumans have genetic shortcomings compared to average humans, right? Nothing is so foolish (even moreso than animals) and some parents will choose to have nothing as children, pets, or even houseplants. Okay so there is nothing wrong with that. Some are chosen to be worshiped and adored as pets while others must slave away providing food, managing money, running governments, providing fruits (senseless tree slavery), etc. You don't understand. This is a world where liberty is the very function of the government. No one is made to be foolish, they are designed with a more stable brain with less likelihood of obsessive compulsive disorders and other such nerdliness. Let's say, Arnold the Swartzeneggir. Perfectly content pumping iron for a few hours a day whilst the mind wanders from the floor to the walls and back again. Nothing could be more pressureless and no one more successful. Why do you think his father desired his mother and perhaps vice versa, etc? Because she had the eye of the tiger and the tiger holds the musk of love. Arnold doesn't mind being the Govermenter. It is his duty. You insult his dignity, calling him a slave. I know that is not what you were saying but then you should check the logic on those implications.

I'm simply suggesting we take part in the process of gene selection rather then making our inner zombies do all the guess/slave work. Just for those for whom it is convenient. People with a "genetic gaydar" (ability to spot genetic traits through observation) or those who have an extra gene reading machine lying around. Genetic councilors drunken with alcohol bumping around the party providing assessments merely for the social pleasure. There is nothing to fear. All will be welcome to breed as they see fit so long as they can afford their lifestyle. Peer back into the future, now what do you see? It is just that you are so accustom to coerced roles that you are not considering the world where noncoercion is the most fundamentally valued thing. Everyone would be immediately ashamed of a coercive word for this is clear to all of higher intelligence. It just won't happen ever, or at least not in a form that we mere 2013ers would recognize with our hobbled darwinian era brains.

Now that that has been explained I will tell you what will happen if someone doesn't prefer to choose the occupation that their genetics were programmed for. They are trying to put all the best genes together but large muscular bodies require more food; we could go either way on that one, couldn't we? Everyone will be super smart, some may just have more drive towards certain games or roles. When people don't go the way a genetic programmer expected they will modify their expectations, not the people. See this gets into the whole subject of designing cities and occupations for the benefit of workers, etc. Sure when you add designer babies to the typical blind consumerist, they may choose superficial traits that may be detrimental to health, intelligence, etc, but these breeds won't survive in the long run.

~ Lumenos (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"I'm simply suggesting we take part in the process of gene selection" - Why? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

My favourite - It is an absolutely established fact that nonhumans have genetic shortcomings compared to average humans, right? - talk about not even wrong. Innocent Bystander (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Why take part in gene selection?" you ask. Save money on health problems of children. Have children more likely to make proud achievements. You ask such a bizarre and insane question just because it is expensive to see actual embryo genes for most of us. I think maybe face shapes come from intentions of the soul combined with circumstances. There should be insurance/tax incentives if/when genetic physical health is certain (mental health genetics sometimes gets into ambiguities and politics). You need to read more. When the happy gene is found everyone who loves their children will have to have it. What about when it is standard practice to have genome sequenced for pregnant ladies, etc? This one has gay gene and happy gene. Of course parents will decide or leave it up to communism. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore another things that's expensive's embryo transplant and artificial incubation/pregnancy. Forget about that in the future. It will probably be free and mandatory for real parents (nondeadbeats). ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To take you seriously for a moment (which is really hard, by the way), what would you consider to be more important for a child, that the parents have the "right" genes or that the parents provide a loving and caring environment within which to grow. Or, to put it another way, supposing you met the woman of your dreams, your one love, your soul mate, and it turned out that, between you, you weren't giving your children the best of the best mix, is that it? Sorry, dearest, I love you but your genes are substandard. Oh, brave new world, that has such people in it! (Oh, and you do understand that Brave New World was supposed to be a horror story, don't you?). Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I can get behind voluntary programs for eliminating defective genes that cause certain genetic conditions, like cystic fibrosis. However, I'm asking why do you want to promote genes that make us generally stronger, or generally smarter? What benefits do you think would derive? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

One true love? That's oxymoronic. Love is not jealous or possessive. I have multiple "women" in my dreams and they don't have to love me the most. I suppose people think they found the "one true love" when they meet someone who they like enough to stop looking for a while. Genetic health is just a part of a loving, caring environment. It isn't very well understood. Attraction may have a lot to do with genetic compatibility. None of this has anything to do with being together and raising children. Many governments pay parents to raise children with the "wrong" genes because so many are programmed to want children made of the genes that happen to be in their body. If you have no concern for genetics then why not adopt?

What benefits are there of strength or intelligence? What benefit is health or education? There are obvious benefits, the question is whether they come with side-effects and if they are worth the initial cost compared to other investments. It is believed that we are facing an environmental catastrophe. It seems that if technological or social innovations can mitigate these kinds of problem, this will require some smart people.

~ Lumenos (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are benefits to education, such as public health education. What again is the benefit of public policies to make stronger children? I'm not seeing the benefit here. I suppose you might argue that there might be decreased education costs of schools if children were smarter, and thus lower taxes, but I think the benefits to be minimal compared to the limitations of personal freedoms. To cut to the chase, because you seem to be extraordinarily thick, let me be blunt. I don't see the purpose or moral benefit to most eugenics. Making people of society physically stronger has nothing to do with the happiness and freedom of people, nor the other values of humanism. Making people smarter similarly has little to nothing to do with the happiness and freedom of people, nor the other values of humanism. I do not care about making humanity physically stronger or smarter at all as its own end. If you want to sell me on this, you have to identify a value of humanism which is furthered by your policies, and show how your policies advance those values of humanism, and lay out the costs, and argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. You haven't specified any benefits at all - just some side effects that people might be smarter or physically stronger, and this is me not caring at all. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I'm not suggesting we have tax funded laws to promote, coerce or force policies. These are things people should just do for themselves.

Having more muscular children might decrease health costs because, even at rest, muscles burn calories and most people eat too many. Plus if you become 500 lbs muscles will aid movement.

Perhaps most of what genetic councilors recommend is for intelligence and health but strength is also important for self defense. Rape and other physical abuse/intimidation is usually done on physically weaker people. Police, military, militia, guerrilla, samurai, whatever, often need to be strong. Although there is more dependence on technology for state "wars", that could end when economies collapse or when you live where violent outlaws roam the streets and schools. Violent crime is a significant threat most places in the world, especially when you are not on a property where you are welcome as owner, customer, employee, etc. Public school is a shinny gem of an example.

Muscles are often used during sexual intercourse which can result in pleasurable sensations, emotions, and intentional offspring. Female satisfaction can only be achieved with man hours of work, requiring groups of 4 to 10. Without this males will be discarded.

Most happiness and freedom comes from people making themselves happy and free. You don't see how genetics probably effects this? Do you think public policies are not influenced by the intelligence and autonomy of the citizenry?

~ Lumenos (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're grasping at straws. It's actually rather comical, or would be if it weren't so sad. So, overall, we have "stronger people are less fat and thus have less health care costs", "if everyone gets stronger, then violence and rape becomes less frequent" (I strongly suggest you think that one though just a little), and "sex will be better" (lolwut really?). Then we get to the really good stuff: Man hours of work to pleasure a woman, working in groups of 4 to 10, and males being "discarded". Are you batshit insane? I have to call troll. Either way, I think I'm done wasting my time on you. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Why you call troll is she your girlfriend? Anyway, not everyone will get stronger, only those who heed my words (approximately 0-5 people). So while my metaphysical offspring will have the strength with which to harm others they won't use it in this way because of right morals. Good thing for your offspring for they may need help for reasonable fee. Your technique is to have more weak people so that none may harm anyone? So then we become a threat because we appreciate strength? Are there other disadvantages of strength (because this one must be set aside now)?

Please do not punish me with disapproval, I am in fact right about many things. Yes, I have the research right here. Females require endurance or oral sex. Some take the easy way with oral sex but this is unnatural and could lead to pregnancy. Here and there you hear the wail of the discarded male for their inability to please. Why? Could be small muscles. Maybe not, but it could be. You have to admit possibilities in order to learn. Look at the models with big muscles. Why is that? How do you maintain a pushup position with small muscles? Lightweight torso maybe. Okay fine but respect those who do things a different way. There is nothing wrong with big muscles some folks even find them sexy! Come down off your high horse and read the truth.

~ Lumenos (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I just wanted to single this out: "Why you call troll is she your girlfriend?" I've heard better retorts from seven-year-olds. Ochotona princeps ^{not a pokémon} 02:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That is nothing to be ashamed of. So far there has been no one to prove that people should not make babies with the best genetics possible, being sensitive to attraction instincts as well as the latest scientific discoveries. For some this means gratefully enjoying as their wife becomes frisky with Alpha Man (a superhero). Sperm banks so expensive, smells are lacking, and one should always check the personality of their sperm partner. The sperm partner must likewise check smells (has to do with compatible immunities and possibly things yet to be discovered) and consider if the boy/girl will enjoy being the pet of this larger person. Talk to old families and friends. Learn things about each other from spies who have things to say. ~ Lumenos (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I wince in your general direction. What happens to the not master race? Do we who-are-not blessed with genes of greatness end up with less respect? Forgive me for this ad absurdum argument, but it is reasonable to assume that this would create a class system. One quite bad. And how would you keep track of your 'master race?" Surely the government cannot keep track of such thing, so it would be up to the individual people to decide about such things. Most people are NOT qualified geneticists or scientists or qualified in any way to make such a choice. So they would have to to go to scientists or something to make the choice for them. Quite uncomfortable, no? Asking a scientist to test your blood or something to see if you can have a kid is creepy. And this would cost a LOT to decide this (as in paying the scientists to test your genes). And what would be the definition of a mastermrace? Smarter? Stronger? You have no criteria and that is dumb (like a moose). I belittle you by referring to the Sci-fi film, Gahtakka (is that how you spell it?). If a master race DID come out, would you put on your résumé "I am a member of so-and-so caste of the master race, so I am qualified for this position." Your argument basically boils down to eugenics. That's all it is. Would you reject a nice, intelligent beautiful girl just because her genes are wrong? That's messed up and could lead to you never getting laid. Ever. again. So for the sake of your happiness (and seed) please drop this line of thought.

All things considered, I would be easily forgiven for trolling you. --[[User:At At ]] [[User_talk:At HaHaHa! ]] (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

All of the million races are not-master-races compared with the better ones to be made. Those without the favored genes for their role, are not conceived, are aborted, or become wards of the state or begrudged parents. This is not my intention, this is the result of people choosing babies from their own genes instead of adopting. The role these children are coerced into is that of belonging to their biological parent(s) and their state.

When our genes result in us having less respect this is due to the way we act. After we are born, no one cares about our genes unless they wish to procreate. Classes can be based on merit but let's look at the most obvious classes in our world today, the older class and the younger class. Since youth are the lower class they are held in special containers called "classrooms" where they are instructed on how to behave like the higher class. They are sorta taught survival skills at the same time but it tends to be oriented toward being an employee (lower class) rather than an employer (higher class).

What I suggest is that merit is based on one's service to sentient life so that the more ubermyn there are the more volunteers can easily help everyone with their needs. Many people want to help they just don't know how. That is the difference between the ubermyn and the common ones. The ubermyn is the biggest not-douche you will ever meet. That is where we are misunderstanding.

Those who find it creepy won't do it. There is really no reason for this. You guys watch too many dystopian nonsense to see how this will play out in the real world. It's like, did you ever think that the 1984 monitoring system would be made of devices people will wait in line to purchase? "Oh you mean we get to hold the cameras and protect ourselves from crime?" Yeah, well we don't get to make the laws but we might be able to delete what is on our own cameras. People like me have no problem learning about our genes. This is kind of like believing you descend from apes. Some people think there is an alternative. Others simply take it for granted and don't assume any negative implication. It is just another thing you do for your kids like health care or education. You can follow traditions or you can see how things work and maybe find something more suitable. Wealthy females may wish to avoid childbirth and/or lactation by hiring a surrogate to implant an embryo who may also be the nursemaid. When you see all the meaningless garbage that people buy, wouldn't their time and money be better spent planning someone's genetics?

We keep track of the master races just like any other information such as medical history or achievements.

You said many strange things. Would you put genetic information on a resume? No, the proof is in the pudding. If you are master race you will make achievements or something. Perhaps achievements result from metaphysical will power choices or environment, so these are more reasons only an underclassmyn would put such things on a resume. Is this not why we laugh at such tomfoolery?

Suffer the beautiful ladies to come unto me. What do you imagine them wanting? I have only so much money at this time. You may caress me, etc. This only concerns the activity of unprotected coitus with the fertile. Why would you think I would reject such people? They should ask me, "I want to do such and such." Sometimes I ask them. Do they want to make babby? Are they sure? Because sometimes it seems like they want to have sexual intercourse. Life is too long for big mistakes. More thought, education, networking, and resources should be applied to how one chooses a partner to make babby from. So many divorce and suffer and abuse the accidental children. Where can they turn when everyone is so busy with making more?

~ Lumenos (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'm not saying the act of getting your genes looked at is creepy in itself, but the act of doing that to see if you can mate is very creepy. Also, would it not be quite expensive to do this without an institute specifically for doing it? And you say that there is no reason not to do this. Well, I prefer if humans evolve naturally. The only way I would support this is in the far future and human a dying. That's not happening soon. And anyway, what real reason is there to do this if most of this 'übermensch' stuff can be taught in school? You can teach a kid to be smart or strong or whatever. Genes also come into play, but the human genome is very versatile. The point of evolution is to have a more diverse genome. Not a bunch of 'übermenschs' running around with the same genes. Tell me, if this stuff actually worked, would the human genome become less diverse and therefore less immune to diseases or other crap? What you are suggesting would not create a utopia. It could either change nothing or make the world a tiny bit worse.

--AT (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You can assume "diversity" leads to superior genetics or you can test the hypothesis. Either way it is "eugenics". A gene pool that is only more "diverse" because it includes genetic diseases, is not good for preventing diseases. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone with a gene disease, shouldn't mate. I would think it would be better if they were just as happy to adopt, babysit, use hormones to be nursemaid, tutor, volunteer at the "orphanage", or be friends with young people. Some have said in this forum that they love their own children more and they believe there are genetic reasons for this. It seems cultural to me but again this is not a question of whether "eugenics" is good or bad, it is a question of what is a more practical means to maintain or improve gene pools.

I would also be skeptical that the apes running the "institute" would be biased and have ulterior "political" motivations. If they are funded by private donations, nothing wrong with that. The association of "eugenics" and pseudoscience seems to be the result of some big mistakes/lies of nazis. Well meaning antinazis continue to perpetuate the mistake that if you believe in genetic improvement you should join the nazis. Better eugenics institutions exist. We may justify tax funding to offer free voluntary genetic tests if a comprehensive evaluation were to find there was no better investment of public funds and a large majority of taxpayers supported it. In the meantime we are left to stone age wisdom such as preventing inbreeding and selective breeding of traits we can easily observe.

I'm not arguing just for "eugenics" I'm arguing for a more communal way of living. Instead of thinking "I like children so I should have children", we should think "I like children so I should help children". Most parents become burdened with their children or vice versa and therefore it makes sense for people to have friends/institutions who they trust to share their children. In this habitat having a "family" life doesn't require mating. If you can have sex and have a family without mating, many women may not want the dirty job of incubating the embryos. We may need many biomoms for diversity, unless we are able to eliminate many recessive defects. The expression of recessive genes would add diversity and subject recessive genes to selection pressure thus improving them. Avoiding recessive genes prevents them from evolving. Perhaps recessive genes are how nature maintains diversity when there is inbreeding.

Whether or not there is inbreeding, the communal lifestyle (including food production, temperature control, shared space, etc) would allow us to support more children and adults, decrease ecological damage, and we may therefore have a larger (more diverse) gene pool. Anything that helps the community to thrive allows us to support a larger gene pool. These are what allow us to support a larger gene pool: more efficient use of resources, less pollution, availability of happy volunteers (for occupying and instructing youth or adults), and freedom from genetic disease.

~ Lumenos (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)