Specialisation of population only works if the environment is not changing

what % of the population was on isolated farms in 1930?

Hence eugenics in cattle are okayish

Ford what was you position on the eugenics article?

But if you want it in human pop, you're asking for extinction

pretty high in the US

no

selective breeding is careful farming

hell, selective breeding in humans is fine

ninja - really? higher than it currently is... but i still imagine in 1930 the cities has more population than surrounding areas

> If it is ever documented conclusively, the genetic inferiority of a race on a trait as important as intelligence will rank with the atomic bomb as the most destructive scientific discovery in human history. The correct conclusion is to withhold judgment.
- Turkheimer, E. (1990). Consensus and Controversy About IQ. Psyc critiques, 35(5), 428-430.

we do it naturally, we prefer successful, healthy humans, and don't prefer mates that are shitters

i am not arguing in SUPPORT of it; only pointing out that such things which we ACTIVELY do to improve the health of ANIMAL Populations as it is considered sensible, we won't dare to with human populations

reeeeee

I mean I remember all those famous scientists who specialized in eugenics and ran many tests confirming that eugenics works, and they published those results in well acclaimed scientific journals...oh wait, that never happened

thus not all 'progress' is good

it isn't eugenics in animal populations

A prominent geneticist openly advocating to hide info

it is just cattle raising

Dafuq is dat jack

yes exactly Ford

Scotland voting

therefore, simply declaring something 'not progress' because it is taboo is equally incorrect science

It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it is seen as unethical/immoral or too politically incorrect

exactly

It doesn't work for what lol

"A prominent geneticist openly advocating to hide info" lmao of course you have to rely on conspiratard bs to make your ideas sound at least feasible

it isn't taboo

What does it do work for?

so 'progress' being that which does work isn't always the preferable option

god - its progress by 2 categories.. in the way we get the thing... and the thing itself.. so not starving to death... is progress... if your way there(method) is better agriculture then thats progress on both fronts... but if its 'we killed all the white people so thats 70% of america's mouth not needing to be feed anymore and thats why staving 2 death isnt a problem... then thats not progress at all.

> If it is ever documented conclusively, the genetic inferiority of a race on a trait as important as intelligence will rank with the atomic bomb as the most destructive scientific discovery in human history. The correct conclusion is to withhold judgment.
- Turkheimer, E. (1990). Consensus and Controversy About IQ. Psyc critiques, 35(5), 428-430.

Literally said it

it is retarded ass shit like scientology or conversion therapy

It's not conspiracy you absolute retarded mongoloid

it is retarded pseudo science

He literally said exactly that

yip

too much progress too quickly will destroy any society

you can't take too many golden eggs from the goose without killing it

information age, anyone?