My family is full of defects partly based on genes, such as mental disorders, ugliness, short stature, etc. During a long period of my life, I firmly believed in an incel version of the dream of Sir Francis Galton, the 19th century English polymath, half cousin of Charles Darwin and inventor of eugenics, but now I don't know wether eugenics could be useful for the eradication of incels from society. There are too many obstacles, technical and social, and, at the end, by increasing the level of facial attractiveness we could increase also female standard for sexual and romantic mating.
First of all, height, facial and vocal and body attractiveness are all complex traits, so it is quite impossible with today's techniques (e.g. Crisp cas 9) edit all casual variants, in a effective way, since we don't know any variant with profound effects on these traits. We don't even know the enviromental factors and its interaction with genes (if you do, please indicate to me some decent scientific papers that describe the role of diet or anything else). In addition, polygenic scores for even height (a trait very easily measured and the most studied) only predict a fraction of variability, so to use them in embryo selection or genetic engineering would be very difficult. In the case of embryo selection, there are firms (e.g. Genomic Prediction) which use polygenic scores for complex traits (diseases), but there are extreme limitations due to the polygenic scores and the fact that embryos are of limited genetic variability, they share about 50% of DNA. At the end, I read that assisted technologies (sperm banks, IVF, etc.) increase the risk of non-chromosomical inborn malformations...
Since genetic engineering and embryo selection seem to be useless today and probably so will remain in future, my hope was on selective breeding, but again there are social obstacles and is a very slow technique that requires generations and generations, as Galton knew. Attractiveness is heritable, but ugly sons can come from attractive parents with the opposite also possible. Then, let's see what it would require to implement selective breeding. All ugly, short males should not have children. This already happens, except for some "lucky" cases, in which probably they have an high socioeconomic status due to several factors (background, residence, IQ, etc.) and fuck a gold digger-prostitute. Then, we have ugly women, who, according to blackpill, can fuck. They don't consider the problems which their hypothetical male ugly sons will face. How can we explain to them that they should not have children? We are considered extremists.
At the end, a major, bigger problem I faced in my mind and through the discussion with other. Maybe, after having deleted the ugliest 10, 30, whatever % of male population, we are in a situation in which female standards increase, and so we are faced with a new bunch of sexless males who cannot have a partner.
Maybe, I can ask, with a more egalitarian attractiveness distribution would come a more egalitarian sex market? I don't know. Maybe could be useful to alter the male to female birth ratio???
Please, comment and explain what do you think about eugenics.
First of all, height, facial and vocal and body attractiveness are all complex traits, so it is quite impossible with today's techniques (e.g. Crisp cas 9) edit all casual variants, in a effective way, since we don't know any variant with profound effects on these traits. We don't even know the enviromental factors and its interaction with genes (if you do, please indicate to me some decent scientific papers that describe the role of diet or anything else). In addition, polygenic scores for even height (a trait very easily measured and the most studied) only predict a fraction of variability, so to use them in embryo selection or genetic engineering would be very difficult. In the case of embryo selection, there are firms (e.g. Genomic Prediction) which use polygenic scores for complex traits (diseases), but there are extreme limitations due to the polygenic scores and the fact that embryos are of limited genetic variability, they share about 50% of DNA. At the end, I read that assisted technologies (sperm banks, IVF, etc.) increase the risk of non-chromosomical inborn malformations...
Since genetic engineering and embryo selection seem to be useless today and probably so will remain in future, my hope was on selective breeding, but again there are social obstacles and is a very slow technique that requires generations and generations, as Galton knew. Attractiveness is heritable, but ugly sons can come from attractive parents with the opposite also possible. Then, let's see what it would require to implement selective breeding. All ugly, short males should not have children. This already happens, except for some "lucky" cases, in which probably they have an high socioeconomic status due to several factors (background, residence, IQ, etc.) and fuck a gold digger-prostitute. Then, we have ugly women, who, according to blackpill, can fuck. They don't consider the problems which their hypothetical male ugly sons will face. How can we explain to them that they should not have children? We are considered extremists.
At the end, a major, bigger problem I faced in my mind and through the discussion with other. Maybe, after having deleted the ugliest 10, 30, whatever % of male population, we are in a situation in which female standards increase, and so we are faced with a new bunch of sexless males who cannot have a partner.
Maybe, I can ask, with a more egalitarian attractiveness distribution would come a more egalitarian sex market? I don't know. Maybe could be useful to alter the male to female birth ratio???Please, comment and explain what do you think about eugenics.
