/sci/ - Science & Math

Not any time soon. The average intelligence is too low. Perhaps in 200-500 years after extensive eugenics with selection for higher intelligence, then we will be able to get rid of religion. I'm rather optimistic about this happening, even tho it will be slow.

>>4661091
Stupid people ten to reproduce more...

I guess people will just shift from classic religious bullshittery to things like New Age dualism, quantum mysticism and... whatever the fuck that "Thrive" movement is about.

Spirituality is not bad, institutions convert spirituality in a big business, there is the problem.But somethings like yoga or meditation being dangerous for society

At their core most religious stories are allegory, either the majority will regain this knowledge of them or it'll be lost and the religions will have to be abandoned for new ones. I think the second thing will happen. The faiths we have now just aren't in accord with modern society.

>>4661091

Most religions have been around for over a thousand years. Judaism is at least several thousand years old.

You think in the time span of a couple hundred years, people will just "get smart", and religions will die out?

You are assuming that every single religious person is of lower intelligence. Which is not true at all.

What makes people think that science and religion are mutually exclusive???
Religion IS a science - science of brainwashing and manipulation.
You are all religous even if you deny it. Your religion is money, entertainment, mass-media etc. It's scientific religion (read: brainwashing) perpetrated by zionists.
>>4661091 Especially this moron, who seems to think that eugenics is some kind of good thing.


Wake the fuck up!

>>4661129
>You are assuming that every single religious person is of lower intelligence. Which is not true at all.
If you are religious then you are of lower intelligence. We need to develop, not be trapped in religion.

>>4661140
Eugenics would be a good thing. Oh, you'd rather cystic fibrosis and Huntington's remained in the gene pool?

>>4661086
Actually, I'm hoping Pseudo-Science and Science team up to create a new religion.
I know it sounds retarded, but hear me out.

Religion and spirituality have existed since the dawn of man. Every successful society has incorporated each into their culture and lives. After 10,000 years of explosive populations and wars, you end up with not just a sociological dependence on it. It straight up becomes part of your evolutionary history.

Science has kept itself separate from religion for a long time now. And ultimately, that's why Science has managed to be as prevalent as it is. While everyone else was fighting over whose God was greater, the countries that allowed Science to survive ultimately became the most successful cultures. By staying an arm's length away, the world was able to recognize that it wasn't a threat, but a benefit.

Now as religion start to die off, people want to put their faith in the belief system that has had everyone's interests at heart, the one that's willing to admit when it's screw up.

People want spirituality. It's in our genetics because it's what unified us. Is it really that bad that people want to make Science just as much a part of our lives?

>>4661142
That sounds really ignorant. It sounds like you know nothing about religion at all.

>>4661151
I don't care what happens to the human gene pool.

>>4661142

>>4661172
Then on what basis can you suggest there's a problem with eugenics?

>>4661177
Sorry, I'm not the guy you replied too. If a country wants to do Eugenics it's fine by me, but I don't really have an opinion in the matter.

>>4661169
Religions are made of stories that make people be good and try and explain how things are without proof (and having faith is no proof).

>>4661169
>justifies belief in magic

How fucking retarded are you?

>>4661181
>>4661180
Religions are allegorical stories designed to explain life int he best terminology early humans were capable of. Magic is the result of a misinterpretation of these stories from a modern perspective.

>>4661179
>jumps in the middle of other peoples' exchanges
ishugddt

>>4661091
>Perhaps in 200-500 years after extensive eugenics with selection for higher intelligence
Better idea:

Do what >>4661163 said.

Instead of killing off the genes we don't like, just start allowing better ones to take their place. Let Science become the new Religion so that people have something to believe in.

Seriously, do you see this man?

He helped instill hope and wonder into the hearts of millions of people, and it wasn't by just killing eliminating people who disagreed with him. He did it by telling people that even if there is no God, we are still the phoenixes that arose from the ashes of the heavens.

>>4661188
>best terminology early humans were capable of
We are not "early humans" now. We should be more smarter to believe that shit.

>>4661200
But the things their stories are meant to describe are just as valid now. You're rejecting a literal interpretation of a symbolic work. Teaching by analogy is still useful for most people.

>>4661180
>Religion made of stories that make people be good

Are you fucking 10? 12? WTF?
I don't think you understand what "good" is?
In fact religion usually turns people "bad". You need to read a history books son. You know what the crusades are? The inquisition? Jihad? Honor killings? Slavery? The holocaust?

Religion corrupts people into doing horrible shit! People do horrible things because of religion! The only way a normal person can be corrupted to do something truely evil, if if he thinks "god" wants him to!

>>4661205
It's not supposed to make people good or bad. It's a mythology. A collection of works describing human life through allegory.

Anything that is not a most sincere attempt at shedding the most pure truth on the universe is bad

Thats why I think Buddhism is cool. They believe enlightenment is observing the universe in its complete objective reality, and anything that obscures vision of this reality is practically sin

>>4661203
>But the things their stories are meant to describe are just as valid now

Have you ever read the Bible? The Quran? Any mainstream holy book? You know that 95% of the shit in there applies to situations that don't happen to people anymore. Tons of shit about the rules of being a proper slave-master, selling your daughter into prostitution, and murdering your children. The shit is fucking sickening.

Yeah, there is the 5% containing retarded fairytales, but you would find better moral lessons from any moderns-day childrens book.

>>4661142
Religion is what allowed society to develop in the first place.

It's as integral to what makes us "human" as our genetics themselves. When you start destroying spirituality, you wind up ruining a lot of what made (and still makes) humanity successful.

Religion exists because humanity wants it to exist.
Humans were the ones that ultimately created it.
And it's up to humanity to decide when it's ready to move on.

If you want to make the world a better place, then don't just tear other cultures down. Improve your own culture to a point that everyone chooses to copy you.

>>4661207
>It's a mythology

Yes, religions are nothing but fucked up fairytales. I am glad you finally understand!

Absolutely impossible. Religion is inherent to the human psyche. I'd suggest watching the lecture "Why do we believe in gods?" by Andy Thompson, for more information on the matter.

>>4661225
>When you start destroying spirituality, you wind up ruining a lot of what made humanity successful

Nope. You do realize that "spirituality" is literally a word with no meaning. There is no such thing as the "spirit".

>>4661212
Do you know what I'd honestly be cool with?

If Doctors suggested Alternative Medicines like Acupuncture and Homeopathy to people.

Just tell people it has a placebo effect and that it gives positive results. Whether there's science behind it or not, results are results. And if silly, ritualistic tasks can help improve a person's mental condition, then why should we stop people from doing it?

Plus, it would allow Doctors to keep in touch with with their patients so that when serious problems arise that "mind-over-matter" won't solve, he'll be able to step in.

Honestly, I don't see why anyone would be against a medical system like this,

As long as doctors openly tell patients that it's mostly therapeutic and closely observe the whole process, then at least that money goes to legitimate institutions that are actively looking out for their patient's long term health.

I believe that when we learn enough about the universe nobody will be able to deny that the universe is beyond the scope of any single entity (unless the universe IS that entity).

But who knows, maybe science will actually prove this kind of thinking wrong one day. There's no way to know for a fact, but the evidence doesn't support the idea of God so it would be foolish to believe in him.

>>4661274
Placebos don't work when people know they are placebos.

>>4661274
You don't understand why people wouldn't want to throw their money away on medical treatments that don't actually do anything? "Medical treatments" that involve being stuck full of pins and other stupid bullshit?

gtfo with that shit

>>4661094
I obviously know this. That is why i specifically refer to eugenics being necessary.

>>4661129
>You think in the time span of a couple hundred years, people will just "get smart", and religions will die out?

I gave a method to make people smarter. Religiosity is a function of intelligence. With increasing intelligence, religious shud die out.

>You are assuming that every single religious person is of lower intelligence. Which is not true at all.

I did no such thing. If u thought that i did, u have misinterpreted my views.

>>4661251
>There is no such thing as the "spirit".
True. At least not that we can find.

But there is such a thing as mind-over-matter. And if a man in a white lab coat with a PhD tells people that "sugar pill A" will help improve their mental stability, that alone will turn it into a wonder drug that makes people happy and productive.

Whether it's a Preist backed by God, or a Doctor backed by Science, blind faith and a belief in a bright future gives positive results.

Whether the "spirit" exists or not, Spirituality is still an excellent drug.

However you try and defend it, even though most religions if not all are bullshit, they did us good.

All religions have something in common, that is not a god.
It's peace.

Sure, some bad things happened because of religion, but many good things happened as well.

If you get a reasonable Christian, and don't harass them too much, they will eventually admit they are scared of death.
Same with most people that believe in a religion.

Why?
Because everyone, pastors, Atheists, Christians, nearly anyone will admit that they are scared of death.
No matter how strong someones faith is, there's always that doubt in the back of their mind that throws their religion out.

I'm what you would consider Christian.
Not the average christian though.
I'm not that asshole who tries to recruit people to the cult.
I don't go to church often.
None of the average things.

The only reason why I'm not Christian is mainly to keep peace between my family and me, because there is some part of me that believes part of the bible and then there's the bit that I like about some Christians.
Some aren't.

And great, now I'm just rambling on...

>>4661151
>Eugenics would be a good thing. Oh, you'd rather cystic fibrosis and Huntington's remained in the gene pool?

It's almost a matter of definition. "eugenics" literally means good genes in old greek. It is the applied science of selecting good genes for the future and hence the human gene pool. The examples that u mention are good examples.

>>4661329
The best part would be removing you from the gene pool.

>>4661192
>Instead of killing off the genes we don't like, just start allowing better ones to take their place. Let Science become the new Religion so that people have something to believe in.

U seem to think that eugenics is only negative eugenics. This is not correct.

And then u seem to conflate genes with religions and stuff. Eh. Not making sense.

>>4661239
It's a fairy tale designed to illustrate a points.

>>4661243
>Absolutely impossible. Religion is inherent to the human psyche.

Perhaps. But then that is just a matter of changing human nature. It is not impossible. It requires eugenics to direct it in a good direction ofc. Currently, there are dysgenetic effects at work.

>>4661322
God is the name for the inconceivable. The unknowable reality underneath our own.

>>4661343
Why do you want to change human nature?

>>4661343
There will always be that grandma passing it on.

>>4661294
>You don't understand why people wouldn't want to throw their money away on medical treatments that don't actually do anything?
Then don't buy it.

As I said before, that money would mostly go to keeping track of the patients and observing their progress. The sugar pills and meditation are merely a benefit that are proven to give positive results.

Don't worry, though. I know "facts" are hard to deal with. But you'll understand later.

>>4661353
The fact is that if people know it's a placebo, it won't work. Plain and simple. Also, If people know it's a placebo effect, they can achieve the same exact desired effect by meditating. This has the obvious advantage of not wasting the time of a doctor.

With this kind of stupidity running rampant in the gene pool, I am amazed we have even made it this far.

>>4661349
>Why do you want to change human nature?

Increase intelligence, decrease disease, increase happiness, reduce antisocial behavior, etc.

>>4661352
???

It' worth mentioning that when the majority of dogmae were written, gods were the only ones capable of accomplishing truly world-scale miracles or cataclysms.

Jesus walked on water and made a couple fish and some bread feed a bunch of people. Science let people walk on the moon and genetically engineered strains of food which can grow in near-drought conditions.

I recall when Ariel Sharon was prime minister of Israel and he withdrew from the Gaza strip and hundreds of Kabalist mystics had a gathering to curse him. The leader of the group cursing him with "lashes of fire" had spend 62 years of his life attaining a spiritual "level" through massive study and contemplation of old texts. THe end result was he had a stroke and went into a coma and it was called a miracle/triumph of mystical power by many hardcore believers.

On the other hand in about 9 years of study a person of average intelligence could study physics/chemistry/materials science and explosives engineering and build a fully functional thermonuclear device ( given the materials) which can wipe out cities with no ambiguity about whether or not a nuke was the cause.

tl;dr : Religion doesn't have a monopoly on claims of power to heal/cure any more so there is hope it will be marginalized, but I don't think fully gone.

>>4661368
Why do you care about the well-being of the rest of the species?

>>4661372
Because the lesser of our species holds back the rest of us.

Isn't religion already slowly dying in the more developed countries?

In the past it was just a shitty explanation for unknown phenomena, because we humans are like that: we hate not knowing shit.

Nowadays religion just seems like an enforced tradition: old people tell kids because they can't fucking accept that what they themselves were told as kids is bullshit. Apparently it's really hard to un-learn what you learned as a little kid.

However, sane people turn to science when they really need something. Who prays instead of seeing the doctor this days? Just the retarded fanatics. I think the lack of practical use will make religion slowly fade away, it's just too soon.

There will always be religions, as there will always be the unknown.

>>4661374
You aren't seeing objectively. You see through a construct in your head that contains an idea of you and the people around you. You're caring about an idea, not a reality.

>>4661343
Do you know why there's a right to "religious freedom"?

It's not because the government was kind enough to give it to people. It's because "Rights" are principles that people are willing to kill for.

I know you're all edgy and think that "Morality isn't real", and that eugenics would improve humanity somehow.

But when you try to regulate religion or reproduction, you don't get a society that's free of religion and idiots. You end up with a pissed off group of people who:
1) Have no morals
2) Have no children to worry about
3) Are stupid and angry as hell.

I'm not sure if you realize just exactly how awful your ideas are. Especially not in this day and age, where the last major attempt a eugenics not only failed spectacularly, but it resulted in that race spreading across the entire world.

No matter what group you try to eliminate, you'll only manage to make them stronger and more determined to get revenge.

Take a lesson from the history books. Eugenics doesn't fucking work.

On a related note, the Ba'hai are an interesting religion. To my undeerstanding they feel it's their most important virtue to understand and educate themselves and their families in scientific knowledge. Their reasoning is somewhat odd but the result I find with the 5 or 6 I've met are exceptionaly well-educated people.

They believe the new and old testament, the koran and some other scriptures as well but not in the usual sense. More that a deity reveals things in such a way that the people of that era are capable of understanding. So in essence science is, for the Ba'hai, the latest and most exciting form of revealation. But they eschew the mysticism, and if they find a downright contradiction in previous scriptures they simple do away with it.

Also their places of worship are based around the idea of " let's make a very relaxing, beautiful place to sit and read or think, and place a lecture hall there for seminars and workshops."

tl;dr: The Ba'Hai seem to have evolved religion to integrate science into their beliefs and do an awesome job at it.

Pic related, it's the Ba'hai gardens in Haifa, Israel. It sits on top several rooms used for contemplation and lectures and is freakin amazing.

>>4661377
I think it depends on your definition of religion.
As a great comedian once said "Because throughout history, every mystery EVER solved, has turned out to be... Not magic." -Tim Minchin

As that starts to sink in generation after generation people will start putting their faith in science rather than God.

I do, however, think the belief in magic will remain for quite a long time. Probably until technology advances to such a point that magic is no longer necessary for people's fantasies to be fulfilled.

>>4661392
What if we reformed religion to where God was simply allegory for the forces of the Universe. Completely natural and explainable forces, but the personification would help people learn it easier.

>>4661381
You're right. I'm not seeing it objectively at all. When we are prevented from doing proper stem cell research simply because uneducated/religious people throw a fit... clearly that isn't objective at all. Merely my opinion.
There are plenty of examples of stupid/religious people holding back technology, medicine, and logical thinking. To deny that is willful ignorance.

>>4661392
>Probably until technology advances to such a point that magic is no longer necessary for people's fantasies to be fulfilled.

You're posting on a forum which exists in a theoretical mathematicl realm between pieces of silicon. Youc an within 30 seconds fin ANY type of pornography or buy/calculate almost anything you could concieve and afford. As well we have the power to make any woman have bigger tits or look basically however you want, or change gender.

Also we have microwave burritos.

As long as science can't explain anything about the origins of the universe there will always be religion. Maybe not organized religion, but people will always be religious.

>>4661401
Please see >>4661385

It's been done, it's called Ba'Hai/Bahaism

>>4661406
Caring at all about the advancement of man in any way is un-objective as you are only one part within this.

>>4661415
What did you just recently take a philosophy class? GTFO with that retarded bullshit.

>>4661412
>implying "God said let..." explains anything.

>>4661434
No. It's okay to not be objective, but you shouldn't be overly obsessive about it. Just sit back and let it flow.

>>4661434
>implying they'd use clumsy phrasing like that in a philosophy class

I have only one question.

Why are we talking about using eugenics, the careful selection of genes, to get rid of certain religions, of which there is only a social basis? Surely it'd be a better idea to socially remove it than try and control the reproduction of a large population? I think I may have missed something here. I am not a clever person, after all.

Also, when I say 'socially remove it,' I don't mean start a war and burn everything that is related to the religions that could be seen as promoting bad thinking. I mean talk to people and start nudging them to think differently about things. Direct attacks just put people on the defensive and make them unwilling to listen to you.

>>4661448
>implying anyone would expect someone who buys into that shit would actually remember the exact phrasing that any of the "great philosophers" used

>>4661435
Organized religion is bullshit, and everyone should know that. But people will make up their own beliefs, and in that sense it can be called religion.

>>4661364
>The fact is that if people know it's a placebo, it won't work.
It depends on how you word it. If you tell some that a treatment won't work, then it's not going to work.

But if you tell someone that the treatment has mixed results and produces the "Placebo Effect", that's different. The fact that a doctor suggested it.

Oh, by the way, have this:

http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all

Just a heads up, he placebo effect will get stronger over time as people continue to abandon their religions. Have this, too.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/spirituality-may-help-people-live-longer

>>4661372
>>4661374
I'm a human. I'm have a working empathy faculty.

>>4661375
>Isn't religion already slowly dying in the more developed countries?

Somewhat. But we cud speed it up by improving the average intelligence.

>>4661412
> As long as science can't explain anything about the origins of the universe there will always be religion. Maybe not organized religion, but people will always be religious.

I don't think so. Any evidence for this claim? Intelligence is known to correlate negatively with religion. So is education (altho perhaps not independently of intelligence). Increasing the average intelligence shud work.

mfw the sun expands and shreds me to plasma in a few billion yrs

Anyone suggesting eugenics is either fucking retarded or not describing eugenics as I am familiar with the concept.
Seriously, though, if you don't mean holocaust-style stuff, what do you mean?
kinda curious.

>>4661454
When you have a social phenomenon like religion that sprouted independently across the globe, it's usually a good indication that there's it's something more than just a social phenomenon.

Either way, Religion has been with us since the dawn of man. Prayer and meditation both have positive effects on mental stability. Which is a good sign that whatever it was that caused "Religion", it's probably not something we should toy with too much.

When something like that has ridden with you for 100,000 years, then it's not just "luck" that it has survived, and you're probably not the first to have taken a swing at killing it.

You see the people in this thread talking about Eugenics. But they were definitely not the first to suggest it, and they definitely won't be the last.

OP, do you honestly think that "The Big Bang happened and we do not exist for a higher purpose" will satisfy most of mankind? Nihilism is self destructive

>>4661563
Maybe religion does do some good for people, but they are stupid. They need to die so smarter people can develop even more.

>>4661569
It's not suppose to satisfy people. Science isn't there to make people feel better about themselves. If you can't believe something because it makes you unhappy, please kill yourself.

>>4661559
They're probably talking about population control. Like reproduction laws and shit.

Not like that would work either.

>>4661509
>Intelligence is known to correlate negatively with religion.
I always looked at it that way, too. But honestly, I think it's just that Intelligent people tend to rely on religion less, that's all.

It's not that religious people are dumb, or that religion makes people dumb. It's just that dumb people tend to be fond of religion.

Also:
>Any evidence for this claim?
You'll have as much luck killing religion as you will killing drugs or alcohol.

Unless you destroy all of it, it will always come back. And even then, shrooms would just bring it all back again.

>>4661576

Then what is there to it? Then for what purpose do you live, knowing that there is nothing, no purpose to all this?

A few years ago I was a convinced atheist and my ex-gf a convinced Christian. Seeing this talk about eugenics and shit, I can say she was not the one who should've been removed from the gene pool if there had to be one at that point. A world with only atheists would be a world with more logic and possible advancement sure, but it'd also be one with more war, hate and lack of compassion. This thread is enough proof of that.

Religion is not the problem, the way people act and teach others is. You can correlate the latter with the former and see it as a negative, but you'd be wrong. And pro-eugenic anons, don't bother responding with your well-thought out arguments, I said the same things years ago and you're not really advocating some great ideas.

>>4661600
When I die, that's it. And I have accepted that. Life is short so I live to have fun, enjoying what I can.

We don't need fairy tales to give us reasons to live.

>>4661604
The eugenics posts are just people having fun. If such actions were taken this site and its posters, even those behind 7 proxies, would be gone like those from reddit.

>>4661571
Stupid people in large numbers are just as effective and productive as Intelligent people in large numbers. And there's sort of an unspoken agreement between truce between the two where stupid people provide cheap and easily manipulated manual labor while intelligent people have low birth rates.

In return the stupid people populate and defend the social structure, while the intelligent people modify it for higher production rates. It's kind of hard to explain, but there's sort of a Male/Female dichotomy between the two where neither side has any luck killing off the other because they need each other to propagate.

The end result is kind of weird, but surprisingly efficient.

The society becomes so fast paced and convoluted that instead of a drive towards "intelligence", both sides drive towards "adaptability" and "sociability".

Fashions, trends, and entertainment become a perverse form of natural selection. Smart people have to create trends and entertainment to stay ahead and stupid people are forced to conform. And it becomes very easy to slip-up/get lucky and go up or down a notch.

Long story short, Both Stupid and Intelligent people are a slave to their own creation. And ironically, it knows what's best for both of them.

Humanity is weird.

>>4661649
>Intelligent people in small numbers
Fixed.

>>4661633
>If such actions were taken this site and its posters, even those behind 7 proxies, would be gone like those from reddit.

Please elaborate.

>>4661649
>stupid people provide cheap and easily manipulated manual labor
We could make robots that do them jobs. Problem solved.

>>4661611

>fairy tales

you haven't bothered reading up on some metaphysical philosophy and eastern religions, did you?

Also, some people may think like you, but the gross majority of society will fall in an existential void.

>>4661675
>but the gross majority of society will fall in an existential void.
That don't make it right

2240 seems to be the accepted year

>>4661086

Never. People will always answer certain questions with answers you don't like.

>>4661698
I can deal with answers that I don't like. It's just a trend of lies and stories that I hate.

>implying intelligence correlates to believing in a higher power or not
>implying buddha wasn't the first motherfucker to talk about something similar to the scientific method
>this thread
>not filled with edgy teenagers

>>4661708
So please enlighten me with your sophisticated views.
>implying you have any

>>4661689
Wow, that's a great example of overextrapolating if I ever saw one.

>>4661714
>implying you have any

Exactly, I don't. And that's why I don't go dicking around telling people what to do or believe, because it's fucking retarded, man.

>>4661669
Well, see, that's the thing.

Society is attempting it. But there's kind of a defense mechanism that causes it to back-fire on whoever tries it.

The problem is that once you've build a robot that's capable of completing human tasks, you've created a machine that's almost more interesting than other humans. Or at least you've removed your need for them.

You end up in this situation where there's an even harder drive towards sociability and adaptability because everyone who is intelligent or rich enough to get a sexbot ends up not having children.


But seriously. Easy accessibility to porn, entertainment, and supplies causes any country with heavy internet influence to birth rates to drop.

You don't eliminate the need for stupid people. Instead, you just eliminate the need for people in general. It just goes back to a drive for sociability and adaptability, but now you're competing with robots as well.

It's pretty much already happening.

>>4661708

>>4661649
>your first statement

No. Stupid people in large numbers will exceed smart people in small numbers by production rate of simple manual labor, because there are more of them. Smart people in small numbers will be more creative than the dumb group (obviously)....

What kind of scenario are we comparing the two? If we made two separate islands on which one contained the dumb group whose population is x as many times as the other island supporting the smart group, then I guess we could ponder how well either will fair.
>the dumb people will need more resource because they are a larger group
>the dumb people will be able to do small tasks faster through the use of greater numbers, but their plans may be flawed
>the smart group will be less diverse and more prone to disease, but may be more effective at treating disease
>the dumb groups diversity and total accrued experience may help them gain knowledge as quickly as the smart group despite their dampened capacity to learn.
>disaster can easily wipe out the smart group, but they may have pans and preparations against such events

How much of a disparity in intellect are we talking about?

Also, I think that to ensure the protection of our species we need to eliminate idiots. As harsh as it sounds and IS, it would be prudent to do so with that goal in mind. We are facing problems in pollution and resource management, over population and bad economic decisions. Actually, since incompetent people seem to vastly outnumber intelligent people most of the decisions that are being made are going to be ill advised.

Much of the easy labor that these people provide could be done by machines much more effectively.

>>4661705

>lies

you don't know whether they are right or wrong. How do you know that Buddhism isn't true?

>>4661763
Agendum:

Not only would environmental and resource concerns be lessened by lowering the population and thus lowering the impact, but we have eliminated the possibility of idiots making those same mistakes.
>implying that the smarties wouldn't be evil

Yes, I am advocating for eugenics. Maybe we shouldn't kill those people directly, especially considering the problems that would bring, but instead take the less violent route of simply not letting idiots breed, lowering the population to manageable levels, and fashioning a human that is exceptional in every faculty.

>also, one of the dumbest arguments i've heard against this is that you shouldn't try and force evolution because natural selection always conforms us to be fit to the best of our environment, but this is obviously not the case. humans have progressed to the point we we no longer have to evolve to survive (natural selection is still happening though, obviously) humans instead shape our environment to suit us - so we aren't evolving and we certainly wouldn't be hindering some important progression

>>4661461
>organized religion is bullshit
>people will make up their own beliefs

And how the fuck is making up your own beliefs not batshit insane?

>>4661734
Wow, everyone should be more like you. We would have a great world

>>4661763
>How much of a disparity in intellect are we talking about?
Kind of a hard question to answer. Mostly because there's a trend in both directions where if you're too smart or too dumb, you kind of lose the ability to connect to other people. Mostly because either you're too dumb for them, or they're too dumb for you.

Making a distinction between the two groups is rather hard, mostly because we're already in a point in history where we've been driving towards mental and social adaptability instead of intelligence for a while now.

>Much of the easy labor that these people provide could be done by machines much more effectively.
See >>4661748

You don't just replace stupid people without severe consequences.

>>4661766
>but instead take the less violent route of simply not letting idiots breed

See >>4661383.

Eugenics doesn't work.
/discussion

>>4661765
How do you know Pokemon isn't real?

YOU DUMB FUCK

>Mostly because there's a trend...connect to other people.

That does happen, but when someone with an exceptional IQ is not autistic or whatever they seem to be fit in pretty damn well and in fact are pretty damn adjusted people. Also, since they would be in their specific group I don't think that would be something to worry about.


>social adaptability instead of intelligence for a while now.

I think we should and can drive the average to become more than adequate in both aspects.

>>4661786
That's different. Pokemon was invented to entertain the infantile.

>>4661795
But anyone could make a religion and then say "you can't prove I'm wrong".

>>4661801
Then so what?

>>4661792
>That does happen, but when someone with an exceptional IQ is not autistic or whatever they seem to be fit in pretty damn well and in fact are pretty damn adjusted people.
But then you already have a natural drive towards intelligence to begin with.

Even if you're anti-social, you'll have much more of a chance at getting laid than a retard who's both dumb and awkward.

If anything, the drive towards sociability just amplifies this trend. So I hardly see a reason to be concerned about it to begin with.

>>4661807
Pokemon is real, proof me wrong

>Buddhism a religion

lol, this thread.

>>4661820
>implying pokemon is not real

>>4661785
I am completely aware of the fact that it will be VERY difficult to enact this goal. And that people will be very reluctant to do so, as I would be too. I'm pretty sure I'd be on the shit-list.

And I'm advocating a different way to go about it than what the nazis did. Also, the Nazis were doing to a group that has been shown to, ironically, be one the most productive and intelligent races on average.

If we don't do this, then what the hell are we supposed to do? I'm pretty sure fucked as is and letting ourselves be as sexually incontinent and incompetent as ever is going to do as much good as a backfire of suggestion.

We would do it much differently than the Nazis:
>we wouldn't kill people horrifically
>though some races would be targeted more, this isn't due to racism, but instead the fact that they may carry more undesirable genes. there can be a black man whose genes are used to modify newborns because his were found to be what we need
>we could offer incentives for people to not breed or get their children modified, but only if we know that they can properly care for the child

Changing the environment of which the person is raised in can certainly eliminate a lot of ills. The problem is that dumbasses will fuck it up again. The humans that are created to be perfect will not only make correct and beneficial decisions, but also promote an environment that will benefit those developing.

>>4661823
I consider Christianity, Buddhism, and Science to all be religions.

As in, "Who gives a fuck, they're all belief systems."

It's just that Science is so good that it's almost a shame to place them in the same class.

>>4661824
>>4661824
Pokemon is just as real as god, santa clause, and the x-men.

>>4661828
who chooses the perfect human?

>>4661832
We have observed pokemon to evolve. How can you deny the evidence?

>>4661811
Honestly, I don't know if we are heading in a progressive direction are digressive direction, but what is the defining factor of whether our species will be a-okay is whether or not we'll have enough time to fix things. We might be progressing, but not fast enough and are therefor fucked as is.

>>4661836
and they evolve. suck on that creationists!

>>4661833
Looks are not what matters. I know that quality is subjective, but if we want a stable future, I know that we need people who possess the following qualities inherently:
>nice and kind, willing to promote the emotional well being of others
>quick to learn and highly creative
>emotionally stable
>not prone to psychological and physiological disease
>blah, blah, blah you know what i'm getting at

>>4661823
>Buddhism
>not a religion

>>4661829
>science just a belief system

A belief system that directly corresponds to reality is more then just a belief system, it is the closest think humanity will ever know to a "fact".

>>4661845
>not prone to psychological and physiological disease
That's the only one I can see that is not how the person was raised

>>4661849
No. It has been shown that some people are just inherently more sociable and less competitive than others. There are people that are genetically predetermined to fair better than others in social situations. Some people are just born more intelligent too. YES environmental does play a huge factor, but as I said before, inherently better people will be able to create that environment.

>>4661850
>never read a buddhist text

well boy, dont talk about the things you don't know a single shit about

>>4661858
It does seem like a good idea I guess.

But if someone said I couldn't reproduce I would not let that happen without a fight.

>>4661867
I wouldn't either and that's the biggest problem in my argument.

>>4661862
>karma
>previous lives
>next lives
>not religion

>Do you think there will ever be a time when there are no religious people in the world?

Yes it will be called the end of the world. Science and modern "ideologies" wears a man down. Meanwhile religion empowers men and that boosts the productivity of everything and shapes a better society since both men and women are happy. A society based on experimental beliefs such as human rights, women and men equality, feminism etc. yuck, we can't even have one little capital punishment... Religion isn't about just believing a sky dad, it shows you a way of living better than any other thing Freud or other STD ridden whores tell you.

>>4661828
You're making precisely the same mistakes that the Nazi's did; You're horribly underestimating your foes.

The Eugenics you're suggest? Not the first time it's happened. It's not a coincidence that many religions care more about devotion to God than Intelligence.

Ever notice how despite their advanced culture, the Egyptians were killed and yet the Jews have exploded in population? They carried that story for thousands of years, just so they would never forget what happened.

Now let's look at the present. Poor people seem to have this strange obsession with the Illuminati. They are totally convinced that some organization or group is out to get them. There's no rationality behind it. They just seem to think that the moment that anything goes wrong, it's because of the Illuminati.

Man, stupid people are so crazy, aren't they?
They just believe the silliest things in the world.
Like anyone would EVER try to conspire against them... right?

Just so you and I are clear, you have no fucking idea what you are up against, how old it is, nor how many people have tried and failed.

I suggest you drop your childish ideals immediately.

>>4661911
I'm not really sure how to address this. I will say that it made for a good laugh and think you'll make a decent satirist one day.

I thought about the possibility of an Alex Jones type conspiracy nut reading my production and giggled a little.

I think the greatest fact that one can be aware of is that we can never truly know what the future may bring because we can never conceptualize a completely accurate description of the present. What I mean is that whatever factors cause the Jews to succeed and the Egyptians to fail may not be applicable to this discussion. And as i said before we would go about it in very different way than the Nazis. The biggest difference being that we aren't going after people arbitrarily by race.

>It's not a coincidence that many religions care more about devotion to God than Intelligence.

I think this would eliminate that flaw.

I think the answer is quite simply that it turns out there are no overtly supernatural forces acting anywhere in our universe and everyone recognizes this, there will still remain superstition no matter if it is organized into religion.

We have to accept that humans are currently, and have been judging from the past, intellectually imperfect for civilized life. This doesn't mean unintelligent. It just means in order to maximize your potential as a citizen that sacrifices their own selfish desires to contribute to the greater good of the social unit they are a part of, sometimes we humans need to 'fool' ourselves to make the medicine a little easier to swallow. Now, of course people will start to say, well, you don't have to be religious to be altruistic. Of course that is true. But it's also true you do not need a hammer to drive a nail thru a plank. But it's a tool to make it a little easier. Religion is a tool, essentially. It makes collectivism that ensures a better future for generations to come more palatable. As further evidence that religion serves to rectify some relative intellectual shortcoming inherent to modern humans, we tend to see religiosity increase as average quality of life decreases within a society, which suggests, of course, that people with easier lives are less in need of conserving mental energy to sacrifice to be a good citizen.

Obviously, being that humans are so complex, the practical implications of religion go beyond merely being a tool to make doing the 'right thing' easier. It has many symptoms, some may be destructive. But the tendency throughout history, has been that organized religion has served as a useful tool, I think, than had it not been present.

>Bahai faith
>Sexual intercourse is only permitted between a husband and wife, and thus premarital, extramarital and homosexual intercourse are forbidden

They sound like a bunch of wonderful, enlightened people

>>4662005

What exactly is wrong with that?

>>4661911
Way to Godwin the thread, assburger.

>>4662017
>No homosexual partnerships
>No gay sex
>No premarital sex

What's right with it?

>>4662017
Also
>paying a dowry
>2012

Thelema

>>4662027

What you just listed, of course.

>>4662050

>Believing Buddhism is a religion
>2012

mfw

>>4662064
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_deities,_bodhisattvas,_and_demons

>>4662064
>thinking a belief in karma and reincarnation has any scientific basis

>>4661559
>Anyone suggesting eugenics is either fucking retarded or not describing eugenics as I am familiar with the concept.
Seriously, though, if you don't mean holocaust-style stuff, what do you mean?
kinda curious.

Eugenics was very popular among intellectuals in the early 20th century. For good reason. It fell into public, but not to the same extend, intellectual disrespect after world war 2 where the germans had some weird eugenic programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Basically, anyone interested in the matter shud read the Wikipedia page, and then the book Eugenics: A reassessment by Richard Lynn.
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Richard-Lynn-Eugenics.pdf

>>4661589
>I always looked at it that way, too. But honestly, I think it's just that Intelligent people tend to rely on religion less, that's all.

>It's not that religious people are dumb, or that religion makes people dumb. It's just that dumb people tend to be fond of religion.

I don't understand what u are saying i think. What u are saying is just contradicting urself. They are not dumb, but dumb people tend to be fond of religion? What am i reading? Do u think there is a negative correlation or not? If u don't and u are familiar with the data, then something is wrong with u. It is undeniable without being irrational.

>>4661911
>>4661383
>implying genocide against Jews or blacks follows from the basic principles of eugenics

>>4661941
Society is a machine has been running on its own for over 10,000 years. It has taken countless beatings, and yet despite that, it has managed to improve and repair each and every time.

You come in, only 20 years old and decide that despite the fact that it's capable of growing, repairing, and changing itself, it would run better if you just started taking out the "non-essential parts". I mean, you know how individual cogs work, right? Those pieces clearly don't belong. So as long as you're careful, you'd be doing everyone a favor by taking them out so it could run more smoothly.

Fortunately, you're not as foolish as the other people who didn't understand how delicate this machine was. Clearly, you've learned from their past mistakes. They're not subtle like you are.


See, your idea of "improvement" involves taking existing pieces out without actually understanding how they got there. They don't look like they are helping, so clearly this machine's just a mess that no one else is bothering to fix. And instead of asking why no one else is doing it, you consider yourself a saint for attempting what others have failed at.

This is why I call your ideals childish. You think you can improve it taking out the preexisting pieces. And yet everyone else is trying to put their own in.

When I say "You don't understand what you're messing with", I mean "You don't understand what you're messing with." Instead of seeing why those pieces are there, you're trying to figure out why they shouldn't be. Instead of adding pieces to make it run smoothly, you're trying to take them out. At least learn how they got there to begin with instead of deciding that they don't belong.

>>4662069

Implying that if its not scientific its religion.

You obviously have no understanding of what karma or reincarnation is in the context of Buddhism outside of some bullshit misinterpretation you've heard in some movie or on TV.

>>4661454
>Why are we talking about using eugenics, the careful selection of genes, to get rid of certain religions, of which there is only a social basis? Surely it'd be a better idea to socially remove it than try and control the reproduction of a large population? I think I may have missed something here. I am not a clever person, after all.

U are simply wrong about it only having a 'social basis'. Religiousness is a product of low intelligence (probabilistically).

It is really quite simple. I have explained it before but apparently, u didn't bother to read the thread (?).

Smarter people are less religious, and it is becus of their smartness (among other things).
If we eugenically select for intelligence, then the average intelligence will increase.
So, since more smartness causes atheism (if u allow me to frase it like that), there will be an increase in atheism. Perhaps religion won't be completely gone even with everyone having most of the alleles for intelligence, but there will be a lot less religion. This is a good outcome that we shud work towards.

>>4662082
>not knowing the definition of religion

Get a dictionary

>>4661785
>Eugenics doesn't work.

Ofc it works. Eugenics is just artificial selection with the goal of selecting for good genes. It's impossible to consistently deny that eugenics without denying evolution.

>>4662092

Mfw not knowing the difference between spirituality and religion.

>>4662095
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t

>>4661828
U have strange ideas about how to do eugenics. Modern eugenics do not need these state-level enforced laws. Those are generally bad. Politicians are morons. So unless we get some new and very good government system, i strongly oppose top-down eugenics.

Modern eugenics is things like screening of births and getting rid of fetuses with bad genes. This is a rather primitive form of liberal eugenics and it is clearly a good idea. In a few generations many of the mendelian heritable diseases will be eradicated. Good thing! After that there are more sofisticated methods to use. Read the Richard Lynn book i mentioned.

>>4662074
>>4662079
He was pretty clear about the whole "restricting reproduction" thing and killing people (in a non-horrific matter).

I'm going on eugenics as he describe it.

You can believe what you want, and I can believe what I want. If we both love science and math there should be no conflict of interest when looking at progressing mankind. The inhibitor in the equation is religion itself, and not spiritual beliefs of individuals or what a book teaches.

>>4662098

Lol so according to the only one that applies to Buddhism, we then have the scientific religion, the Republican religion, the democratic religion, the communist religion, on and on and on.

>>4662102
>He was pretty clear about the whole "restricting reproduction" thing and killing people (in a non-horrific matter).

>I'm going on eugenics as he describe it.

U shud do more research. Clearly negative eugenics is not the only way to do eugenics, and the method that the nazis used is not the only way to do negative eugenics.

Etc. Educate urself.

>>4662110
>hurr derr all religions are now spiritualities

>>4662111
Yes, thanks, I'm more than aware of that.

Again, I am discussing eugenics as he described it. I'm not against attempting to improve the population by selectively breeding people or other methods.

What he describe, however, was the same attitude that summarizes what negative eugenics is.

>>4662110
But communism pretty much is a religion.

Same with Free Market Capitilism, by the way.

>>4662094
We were discussing the act of prohibiting people people from reproducing.

Context, man. Christ.

>>4662121
>What he describe, however, was the same attitude that summarizes what negative eugenics is.

No, it doesn't. The most common form of negative eugenics historically and cross-culturally has been sterilization of retarded people. This was practiced by pretty much every respectable country. Sweden, for instance, sterilized 1% of their population at one point (30's IIRC). This sounds like a lot but it actually isn't. 1% of the population is not all the retarded people. It's a bit less than half of them. <70 of mean=100, sd=15 is about 2.3%. Normal distribution.

Anyway, it wud be wisest to first get rid of the nasty genetic diseases. In that way, one can build comfort with the idea in the population again. This is rather important for democracies. And ofc, just calling it something else helps too. They don't call screenings "an eugenic practice" but it is.

>>4662133
>We were discussing the act of prohibiting people people from reproducing.

That clearly works too. Many countries practiced it for many years. It helps but i'm rather uncomfortable with giving the state that kind of power. Politicians suck, yada yada.

>>4662128

While I may agree, Buddhism is not a religion in the sense that it posits supernatural deities or meaning/creation stories or the universe.

Reincarnation / karma in the original Buddhism ideals is not super natural in any sense. Misinterpetation by retards is how we get this idea. People don't understand this and go on to accuse Buddhism of being a religion.

>>4662147

Of*

>>4662147
>Reincarnation / karma in the original Buddhism ideals is not super natural in any sense. Misinterpetation by retards is how we get this idea.

I love you, man.

>>4662081
We'd be eliminating qualities that I'm sure have never been beneficial. Or at least are not now seeing as how drastically different life is today than it was hundreds to thousands of years ago.

Yes, those pieces helped shape what we have become and have helped to get us *here*, but that assumes that *here* is where we want to be and that it is heading in the right direction. And yes, it would be prudent to take the time to know as much as it is possible to know about the "pieces" and their functions, but as I said, they probably weren't beneficial to begin with and *here* might not be a good place to stand.

>also, i do think that we should employ a myriad of eugenic techniques such as screening an embryos genome for "bad" genes and manually changing them. we could also produce some type of super-embryos that have perfect genes and when a couple wishes to parent they may request to birth one and raise assuming that they meet parenting requirements, i don't think everyone should be allowed to be a parent as you probably guessed

oh, and 18 btw, good guess tho

>>4661091
>Thinking we wont be completely logical computers in 100 years

>>4662309
...