[Chat]stablook

milski

Delmain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AVGrDVa3FM

Delmain

Kamen [chat]er Gaim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beK-q0xTenM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73-fHujFxJE

zepherin

This chat is not the true chat

Winky

I disagree.

1. "Survival of humanity" ought not be seen as a good in and of itself, if the only possibility is stupid, weak humans constantly in pain from their genetic inferiority, but who happen to be immune to Super Flu, or whatever. Quality of life is more important than quantity of life, and should we ever be faced with a choice between descending into diseased savagery, or extinction, well, we had a good run.

2. Modern eugenics doesn't have to rely on such basic techniques such as selective breeding alone, but rather can use genetic tests, genetic engineering, artificial fertilization, etc. Already some communities at risk for recessive fatal illnesses get preemptive testing, and that should be a worldwide norm, among other things. Purebred dogs have problems because dog breeders really don't care about dogs, not because it is impossible to selectively breed an organism for maximum fitness.

3. Finally, humans don't have meaningful selective pressure. No macroscopic organism exists on the world which presents even the most trivial threat to the species as a whole, and while microorganisms are a bit tougher, we still live in an unparalleled age of medicine and disease prevention. Humans are not entirely separated from natural selection, but are, mostly separated from natural selection. Wolves can't support a single cub who is too crippled to walk, we can support as many as we deem fit to do so.

I am quite confident in the ability of super fit, super healthy, super intelligent humans, working with AI, to avoid extinction. And again, if not, why feed into the base, despicable cruelty of the universe?

There is no part of this post that isn't stupid.

Understand that I worked as a bioinformatician studying Huntington's disease, and my life goal is to study cystic fibrosis (a disease which directly affects my own family).

"Genetic inferiority" isn't even an intelligible concept, and you seem to be under some massive illusions as to the nature of "quality of life". Which is to say, it is subjective and determined by one's own values. There are not "good" and "bad" genes, there are genes that are selected for and genes that are not selected for. "Maximum fitness" is something that explicitly exists in regard to a selective pressure. If we wanted to breed for "quality of life" instead of survival, why wouldn't we breed humans to just experience constant orgasm and then die painlessly? What you're saying is that you want to have humans bred to satisfy the qualities that you yourself value, and at which point we might as well be breeding them for blonde hair and blue eyes, because those are "superior" qualities amirite?

And you don't seem to understand how complex our genetics actually are. One does not have a "strong" gene, or a "healthy" gene, they have a massive number of complexly interacting genes with different expression patterns and mechanisms of action and co dependencies, most of which modern science is far from understanding. For every genetic issue that could arise that we can predict and test for, there are thousands of more ways in which the intricate system that is our genome can be massively fucked up. If we were to put all of our modern science towards human eugenics today, we would still fuck up, very quickly.

Your last point is just wrong. Humans are put under selective pressures constantly, society itself imposes selective pressures on humans. It is our environment, and it's what determines who lives and dies, who procreates and who doesn't. Humans continue to evolve, and the fact that you seem to think we need to be getting eaten by tigers for that to be the case makes me feel you have very little idea what you're talking about at all.

DasUberEdward

milski wrote: »

Yesssssssss

miscellaneousinsanity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIcZ3G_AAAs