Is eugenics necessary? Icelandic study would suggest that.

SobieskiSavedEurope

Gold Member
Apr 13, 2017
25,611
1,200
290
Putnam Lake, NY raised, Pawling, NY resident.
It seems if we want to keep our Human superior intelligence, we're going to have to do something to combat the idiots of society having more kids.

This Icelandic study proved that the genes for intelligence are becoming rarer.

Iceland Study on Higher Education Shows Natural Selection Still at Work

Iceland Study on Higher Education Shows Natural Selection Still at Work
PHDgrad-960x492.jpg

Natural selection may make scenes like this rarer in the future. (Wikimedia Commons)

By Barry Starr February 27, 2017
Share
A recent study out of Iceland suggests Icelanders who have genes associated with obtaining more education are having fewer kids than the rest of the country’s population.

What does this mean? Well, if the trend continues, at some point down the evolutionary road, future generations may not be as genetically predisposed to acquiring advanced educational degrees.

While the study is limited to a specific population, and the effects of the reduction in these specific genetic markers are unclear, the research is an interesting reminder that natural selection is still working on people, and that we are still evolving.

The study expands on previous research, which identified DNA markers that tended to correlate with a higher level of education. The current study added dozens of new markers.

When the researchers looked at what was happening to this set of markers over multiple generations of Icelanders, going back to the 1910s, they saw that the DNA markers associated with higher education were becoming a bit less common with each generation.

Although scientists don’t know what these specific areas of our DNA actually do to enable a person to complete more years of schooling, many of them are located near genes affecting fetal brain development.

What’s the reason for the reduction of these genes in Iceland’s population? People with this particular set of markers are waiting longer to have kids, resulting in fewer offspring.

Now before everyone goes off and cites the cult movie “Idiocracy,” in which the effect of less intelligent people having more kids over multiple generations is disastrous, consider that a number of studies comparing identical and fraternal twins suggest that genetic factors only account for around 40 percent of educational attainment. The set of genetic markers that the Iceland study looks at accounts for only around one-tenth of that 40 percent.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Hello nazi.

I support positive eugenics, no death, or sterilizations involved, but rather monetary incentives.

Furthermore Nazis not only approached things in the wrong way, they killed mostly Whites, destroyed mostly White cities, and had an idiotic view that Dolichocephalic peoples were superior.
 
Hello nazi.

I support positive eugenics, no death, or sterilizations involved, but rather monetary incentives.
Not sure how you can keep dumb people from having kids if you don't practice negative eugenics.

And abortion, which is negative eugenics when used to such ends...which is the purpose of planned parenthood in poor minority neighborhoods and abroad.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
Hello nazi.

I support positive eugenics, no death, or sterilizations involved, but rather monetary incentives.
Not sure how you can keep dumb people from having kids if you don't practice negative eugenics.

And abortion, which is negative eugenics when used to such ends...which is the purpose of planned parenthood in poor minority neighborhoods and abroad.

I'd fine low IQ, criminals, and poor people if they have more than 1 kid, and give the high IQ, non-criminals, and rich peoples tax incentives for every kid they have.
 
Hello nazi.

I support positive eugenics, no death, or sterilizations involved, but rather monetary incentives.
Not sure how you can keep dumb people from having kids if you don't practice negative eugenics.

And abortion, which is negative eugenics when used to such ends...which is the purpose of planned parenthood in poor minority neighborhoods and abroad.

I'd fine low IQ, criminals, and poor people if they have more than 1 kid, and give the high IQ, non-criminals, and rich peoples tax incentives for every kid they have.


You'd be fining yourself into extinction.

Not a bad idea.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Hello nazi.

I support positive eugenics, no death, or sterilizations involved, but rather monetary incentives.
Not sure how you can keep dumb people from having kids if you don't practice negative eugenics.

And abortion, which is negative eugenics when used to such ends...which is the purpose of planned parenthood in poor minority neighborhoods and abroad.

I'd fine low IQ, criminals, and poor people if they have more than 1 kid, and give the high IQ, non-criminals, and rich peoples tax incentives for every kid they have.


You'd be fining yourself into extinction.

Not a bad idea.

Nonsense, I scored a 124 IQ, and come from a household worth about 1.4 million.
 
It will be necessary one day. I would imagine a huge die off will be needed as well.
 
Hello nazi.

I support positive eugenics, no death, or sterilizations involved, but rather monetary incentives.
Not sure how you can keep dumb people from having kids if you don't practice negative eugenics.

And abortion, which is negative eugenics when used to such ends...which is the purpose of planned parenthood in poor minority neighborhoods and abroad.
Quit feeding, and housing them for free...
 
We elected George W. Bush. Then we elected Barack Obama. Then we elected Donald Trump. I don't need a scientist to tell me we are collectively getting dumber and dumber.
 
We elected George W. Bush. Then we elected Barack Obama. Then we elected Donald Trump. I don't need a scientist to tell me we are collectively getting dumber and dumber.

I don't support any of them, although the worst of those is W Bush, and the best of those is Trump IMO.
Thank you for proving my point.

So, you think W Bush is better than Trump?
A turnip is better than Trump.
 
We elected George W. Bush. Then we elected Barack Obama. Then we elected Donald Trump. I don't need a scientist to tell me we are collectively getting dumber and dumber.

I don't support any of them, although the worst of those is W Bush, and the best of those is Trump IMO.
Thank you for proving my point.

So, you think W Bush is better than Trump?
A turnip is better than Trump.

Trump hasn't caused a Great Recession, nor has killed thousands, like W Bush.

Thus far I hear he's a jerk, and a racist.

Well, the economy is good, and it's not a war economy thus far.

I care more about results, not that I like Trump's personality.
 
Hello nazi.

I support positive eugenics, no death, or sterilizations involved, but rather monetary incentives.

Furthermore Nazis not only approached things in the wrong way, they killed mostly Whites, destroyed mostly White cities, and had an idiotic view that Dolichocephalic peoples were superior.

Government has no business breeding people. We give monetary incentives to ghetto trash and criminals to breed like bunnies and look where it got us.
 
Hello nazi.

I support positive eugenics, no death, or sterilizations involved, but rather monetary incentives.

Furthermore Nazis not only approached things in the wrong way, they killed mostly Whites, destroyed mostly White cities, and had an idiotic view that Dolichocephalic peoples were superior.

Government has no business breeding people. We give monetary incentives to ghetto trash and criminals to breed like bunnies and look where it got us.

It's actually more cruel to let ghetto trash, and petty criminals die from poverty, than what I'm calling for.
 

Forum List

Back
Top