Selective Breeding is ALWAYS an exercice in Inbreeding you fucking mong. Scientists and farmers are both extremely aware of this and routinely mix outside individuals into their experiment's gene pools to avoid another "mouse utopia". By definition, Eugenics involves restricting a large segment of the gene pool from reproducing, and having the smallest segment of society produce most children. No matter how you go about it, this spells disaster.
Motherfucker you don't even know what Eugenics is. Eugenics posits that the middle and upper classes were the best suited to have children; that's 52% of the USA population and 59% of the UK population.
Further to that! The Mouse Utopia had nothing to do with genetic variation or inbreeding, it was due to overcrowding causing what the researcher at the time called '
A behavioural sink.' A phenomena that occurred specifically because of too many mice, with too many resources.
We don't actually 'mix outside individuals into the experiments gene pool' almost all of the animals used in testing and in farming are
CLONES! Specifically the lab I do my work in uses the BALB/cJ strain of fancy mouse; they are genetically identical to each other and last year three million of them were produced. So no, we do not mix individuals, because that would contaminate the fuck out of the research being done, and potentially lose the traits that we want. We can keep traits stable if we want. Inbreeding can result in negative traits being represented in overdominance; but only if those traits are allowed to enter.
It was tried here in spain btw. Under the Francoist regime and since Primo families of the higher class in certain areas bred only within their social status. Wanna know what happened? They had to steal babies from the poor families because they drove themselves to infertility that's what happened. Not that they were opposed to stealing children, they had already started during the war for indoctrination, but the point here is the infertility. Others have already mentioned how this ended in america and the rest of europe. It never ends well. It always ends in either infertility or severe mutations.
So what you're saying was that it wasn't tried in Spain then? Because Galton laid out his idea in English men of Science 1874 p9-17 where he wrote that it was
"The middle classes who held the most productive" And that they would
"Continually recruit from the lower classes." So if they just let the higher class breed with each other then it wouldn't be a eugenics system, it would be a system of nobility inbreeding.
The policy of 'eugenics' under Franco was a policy of only allowing people with certain political beliefs to breed regardless of the suitability or success of them. It was not eugenics as Galton envisioned; hell, it wasn't even Eugenics as the Nazi's envisioned. Franco's spain was a special kind of absolute fucking cancer.
And yes I am saying that traits which also make you successful will derive in retardation.
I would like some examples of this occurring in real life. Where traits that have lead to human success have also made the successful retarded.
This is for two reasons, first, because in biology everything is a compromise, too much of a good thing is bad.
That's an impossibly broad statement; and is pretty retarded. Sure sickle cell or cystic fibrosis (for example) when present in a single allele do not harm the person; and only when present in both alleles to they lead to the lethal conditions that are present.
But the reverse can also be true where a single allele is enough to end up with a horrible disfiguring disease. FBN1 mutation causing Marfans disease needs only a single allele to present itself and shows an instance where it would be better for a homozygous allele rather than a heterozygous one to be present. Biology is not literally 'too much make bad!' it's a pretty complex issue of biochemistry that can be tracked in broad traits when making decisions for things like breeding. Hell you can breed into Huntingtons and not even realise it until several generations in and then your whole family line dies due to the trinucleotide repeat phenomena.
More concretely, many traits which are good for heterocygotes or involve similar genes can turn really bad for homocygotes or divert too many resources and break other mechanisms too much when multiple of those similar genes coincide.
Just to clarify. Do you mean traits that when presented in heterozygous alleles can display negative traits when present in homozygous alleles?
I think that's what you mean because there's not such thing as a heterocygotes, or a homocygotes. Those are words you have made up. A homozygote is a person with two identical alleles and a heterozygote is someone with two non identical alleles. But yes there are cases where that can occur; the most common in most peoples mind would probably be sickle cell as above noted. But also the reverse can be just as true. It's not as simple as just broad strokes going 'too much bad'.
Secondly, genes aren't selected in a vaccuum during selective breeding. They are selected along every other gene around them. Meaning mutations which cause severe issues due to, for instance, loss of function can easily ride "good traits" and appear in homocygotes, causing severe genetic issues.
Yes, loss of function mutations are a danger; but they're a danger now. As in they already appear within our gene pool and are not being selected against currently because we have medicine to save those people.
This is ok and only affects a small portion of the gene pool so long as you don't select for them. But if you artificially shorten the gene pool it's gonna hurt you dearly. As it has many times in the past. Ever hears of feudal europe? Precolombine tribes? The Pharaohs? Arabic Lords? The Chinese Empire? Time and time again the most successful within their society tried to select for themselves. Time and time again this ended in retardation and infertility. Inbreeding is like that, it's that simple.
So, not the middle classes then? And also not modern societies.
Though speaking of feudal Europe, have you heard of it? This is from Marriage litigation in Medieval England. Page 75
" through the relations of godparents, spiritual affinities which also impeded the validity of marriage. The table of consanguinity together with the carnal and spiritual affinities turned the law of marriage into " a maze of flighty fancies and misapplied logic " [3] so tortuous that, in England, " spouses who had quarrelled began to investigate their pedigrees and were unlucky if they could discover no impedimentum dirimens... "
Essentially if you were within seven degrees of consanguinity with each other you weren't actually allowed to be married. The church would have to issue special legal dispensations. The Habsburgs and the Valois paid a lot of money to be allowed to breed and did so with the intent of keeping wealth out of the hands of the church. Funnily enough it's actually a lot more complex than 'lol inbreeding because fuck the poor'.
Just tossing out 'have you heard of it lol' doesn't really mean anything when it's pretty clear you have no idea what the fuck you're on about.
You are not describing evolution. What you described is "darwinism", a political current that was firmly regarded as pseudoscientific drivel by Darwin himself. Evolution DOES NOT differenciate between "good" and "bad" traits. Only between traits that are "fit for the environment" and traits that aren't. It has no illusions of traits being objectively desirable independent of environment.
Fit for the environment means 'fit to breed' that's literally what it means. Those that survive will have children and those that don't will die. Those that are fit for the environment will have kids. What we have done is engaged in artificial selective pressure by reducing the fertility of those that are successful within our society by engaging in social policy that has encouraged success at the cost of children rather than success which grants children.
Also this is what Darwin said about his own 'pseudoscientific drivel' as you put it.
The Descent of Man 1871 p.501
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
Further to that Alfred Russel Wallace recorded him as saying.
Wallace, 1890, p. 93
"In one of my last conversations with Darwin he expressed himself very gloomily on the future of humanity, on the ground that in our modern civilization natural selection had no play and the fittest did not survive ... it is notorious that our population is more largely renewed in each generation from the lower than from the middle and upper classes.
Man Darwin sure did hate Darwinism.
EDIT: Not to say that I support the mans beliefs on race, but trying to white wash Darwin as not being a massive fucking racist when he at one point said he was loathe to even describe preindustrial tribes as human is pretty fucking retarded. Darwin was himself a racist, bigoted man who was a product of his time.
This is why it works via PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM. Meaning long periods of slow to null evolution being punctuated by periods in which new sellective pressures cause rapid evolution. That's why crocodiles and sharks have stayed nearly the same for so long.
Crocodiles and Sharks haven't changed all that much because there is selective pressure keeping them the same. It's not because of random spurts of massive evolution.
Evolution works by extinction events so to speak.
Evolution is the change of a species over several generations. It can occur independent of extinction events.
And humanity has already had theirs.
So...we only get one? We beat the final boss of existence and now we're just chilling?
We're already so fit even what previously caused mass extinctions only caused us to grow stronger by giving rise to carthage and the roman empire.
This has nothing to do with anything. I don't understand why you have included this in here? We are already pretty fit for our environment thousands of years ago? Yes? What has that got to do with modern fitness?
We won. There is no reason to suspect the need for artificial pressure. It is just not something that we need anymore. Because our evolution is now in the term of tools and systems. And it is extremely noticeable.
We are in an artificially pressured environment. We have contraception, we have success divorced from fertility. You don't "Win" at evolution, that's not how it works. Our evolution is not in terms of tools and systems because those tools and systems are not us. The processes needed to build them are us; do you know what we need to build those tools and maintain those systems.
Intelligence.
Do you know what correlated negatively with intelligence?
Fertility.
Meaning that under our current artificially selective environment the least suitable to maintain our systems are the ones having the most children; and the most suited to maintaining the systems are having the least children.
We didn't just stop feeling natural sellection since we industrialized. We stopped feeling natural sellection at the fucking ice age! Tools beat nature, that is the power of humanity.
TooLs rEmoVe NaTurla SELectiOn!
No. Tools did not introduce a significant artificial pressure as tools still required humans within a social group to build the dammed things; tool use was a successful trait, and with tool use came more food, women and therefore children. We have studies of this. I have actually provided them previously. Howell (1979) in the Kalahari desert found the link between success within human social hierarchy brought with it multiple women, while failure within it lead to a lack of any chance of having children. Neel and Chagnon in 83 of an Amazon basin peoples in a preindustrial state where they found that in the Hunter gatherer groups the man at the top of the hierarchy was having 8.6 children (on average.) and the men at the bottom were having a lot of masturbation. David Buss in '94 outlined that the rise to the top of the hierarchy once the 'head man' dies requires not just physical strength, but charisma, intelligence and charm to stop the other competing men from just killing or expelling you. In preindustrial society we were still under naturally selective pressures as we competed within our social groups for success and that success lead to children.
The artificial selective pressure was when success no longer lead to children and became associated with negative fertility as it is now.
Industrialization provided an artificial selective pressure as for the first time in human history; as with it came social policies that encouraged success but divorced that success from the process of having children. I
And that's why our current gig is pretty good. If an extinction event that can actually knock us out comes, we won't know what genes will help the most. Because of this, the larger the gene pool, the better.
Our gene pool is tiny.
you have no natural pressure the best deal you can have is NO pressure. Better not select and let diversity of environmental factors create as many different traits as possible than applying pressure,
What you have written here is 'If you have no natural selection, then don't engage in artificial selection (which is impossible by the way since we do it every time we choose to have or not have children) but rather allow for multiple environmental factors to create a plurality of traits over time.
In short:
Natural selection.
You fucking dunce.
shorten your genotipic and fenotipic pools and if a real pressure comes you're now fucked.
Genotype, and Phenotype; also we have examples of 'real pressures' when we do case studies on pre industrial existing tribes; and those case studies show that the biggest pressures that we undergo without an industrial society select for the smartest and healthiest members of society to reproduce.
What you're spouting isn't blue sky theory, it's ancient pseudoscientific drivel.
Motherfucker you have a pre high school level understanding of population genetics and biology. You think that evolution is a process to be 'won' and have no concept of what natural selection even is!
What he, and Darwinists like him mean by "good breeding practices" is rich people breed poor people don't. Then they always use moat and bayley reasoning when you mention the obvious issue:
Only way I can imagine solving that would be an artificial incentive to make the successful breed and the non successful not breed. To be a success in the modern world you have to make money and essentially have a good career, to do that in a two person household both of you have to put aside your best child bearing years (men should also not be having kids when they're 45) and focus on the career part. Maybe do what Hungary are doing and give out financial incentives for the middle class to have children; selectively give out free childcare/fertility treatments in better off catchment areas; encourage the poor to put off having children through social programs.
Ah yes, the 'Motte and Bailey' argument of presenting examples of exactly what I would do and compare them to a real world process going on now, specifying the non violent approach.
You're either lying, incapable of basic reading comprehension or a moron.
As for Mount Toba. As mentioned before, punctuated equilibrium. Yes that event drastically reduced our genepool (althought it is debateable by how much) causing rapid evolution alongside a ton of more negative mutations, then the good traits were naturally selected. This is called a bottleneck.
Loss of genetic diversity doesn't cause negative mutation, it also doesn't cause rapid evolution. It's simply a loss of genetic diversity. The human mutation rate is very low across the board save for an initial burst which is theorised to have been caused by a mutation factor no longer present within us.
No. He is specifically saying SUCCESS IN SOCIETY should be the SOLE determinant of reproduction. Which exactly means only the rich and powerful get to breed.
Success is a gradient within society. I have previously noted that it would be the middle classes, and given an example of where this is being done.
What you're saying is good. But it's not what he, or any other of the Eugenics looneybins, say or mean. Since they themselves on this very thread have simped for Galton endlessly, let's start with him so you get what they're saying. Here are some quotes:
"Eugenics is the study of the agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally."
"One of the effects of civilization is to diminish the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection. It preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands."
"The aim of eugenics is to represent each class or sect by its best specimens; that done, to leave them to work out their common civilization in their own way."
"Characteristics cling to families."
"We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognizance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea."
"except by sterilization I cannot yet see any way of checking the produce of the unfit who are allowed their liberty and are below the reach of moral control."
"Jews are specialized for a parasitical existence upon other nations"
Now don't get me wrong. Galton was a great thinker, and did plenty of good for statistics. I'm certainly not gonna disregard the man. But Eugenics were his biggest fuckup. What you need to understand is he was a Darwinist. Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin himself, but was a loose coalition of movements created by people who tried to apply his biological theories to human races, most commonly trying to apply his book "the Descent of Man" as justification, with horrifying results. Eugenics was Galton's attempt at Darwinism, a way to justify literal racial segregation. And even when applied the way posterior darwinists do, by wealth and politics, it ends horrifyingly even faster.
So this is what I wrote earlier.
I feel you're not really understanding. (Or I phrased it poorly) A eugenic program as laid out by Galton when he wrote his essays had a very strict - almost a caste system - set of labels each person would be slapped with. That's what most modern people likely think of in their heads when they read 'eugenics' ala the Nazi's and their triangles and prisoner assessment system. I don't agree with that. Galtons proposal was useful in so far as it simply put forward the idea that we need to correct the issue that success (in all factors, financial, social, educational, etc) in an industrial(ising) society is negatively associated with fertility rather than positively.
That should be achievable by marketing contraception to poorer families, making it, free and constantly recommended. While offering family subsidies, childcare, and other programs to the middle and upper classes. Promote the ideal of the family home with a wife and multiple children; encourage businesses to promote men over women, encourage women to defer education over children and offer later life programs for them to go to college/get into work. That would be my proposal anyway; no idea if that would work, but I'm essentially working backwards from what isn't working. It would be a pretty massive undertaking for any government; but I'd see it the same as setting up medical, or school infrastructure: An investment in the future.
Funnily enough, nothing to do with race, nothing to do with jews, nothing to do with sterilization; nothing to do 'simping' for Galton, I actively reject his entire classification method and only talk about his barebones assumption of fertility as it's backed by evidence.
What you are arguing against is a literal Star Trek style, or Farmhouse style pop science bullshit understanding of eugenics; and going on about the dangers of inbreeding when the population that would be encouraged to breed with each other more would be the majority members of our civilisation. I have said the middle classes (composing of over 50% in the USA and UK) and you have gone 'but inbreeding is bad'.
Will you please leave my windmills alone.
