Our current 1/10 system is utter dog shit it's why Alain delon is attractive

[reptiles]

Our current 1–10 rating system assumes a consistent bell curve based on population norms, where the average is a 5, exemplified by someone like Alain Delon. However, if we raise the average threshold by two points—making 7 the new average, which is feasible within four generations using current embryo selection technology—the entire scale would shift. The standard deviation would also increase, meaning the proportion of "Alain Delon-level" individuals would roughly double.

This is how genetics works: attractiveness is relative to the population. With embryo selection, we could reach a point in four to six generations where a 7/10 becomes a mid-tier "normie," a 5/10 is considered subhuman, and a 3/10 represents just 1% of the population.


Embryo selection scales linearly, and its effectiveness will only improve. The "Chads" we admire today could become the average in the future. This technology is transformative—it might take four or even six generations, but life and reproduction will continue regardless. For future generations, this tech could eliminate inceldom by raising the baseline of attractiveness. Alternatively, it could make women even pickier, as the bell curve shifts further with each generation, potentially rendering even an Alain Delon-level individual "average" or less.

Not a molecule conclusion.

Attractiveness is relative to the population average, and the human brain adapts quickly. With embryo selection, you can absolutely select your child's genes to optimize their potential—it's delusional to think otherwise.joke

 

[Sovvton]

a rare engaging and thought-provoking thread (ironic coming from me ik)

anyways i would disagree from three standpoints:

1. lifestyle habits will still heavily affect looks, and with everything becoming more digitalised and a lot of the younger generations becoming pretty averse to hanging out outside - it looks like general human habits are gonna get even worse

2. theres still so many gene combinations that play into the outcome of a feature as simple as the nose, that even if its possible i think it will take even longer than a few generations to be able to get good at figuring out which is the best out of each minutely different gene pairing to create certain outcomes, not to mention the parents will likely have to have the genes that are being selected, so subhumans might be able to make mtns at best

3. i dont see it being made legal even for experimentation due to ethical reasons, there will probably be some that do it like political leaders, billionaires or ultra rich celebs but i think the other 99.999% of the human population will still be popping out babies the old fashioned way

tl;dr:

i dont think its possible, but if it is (a) it will take an extremely long time to figure out (b) i think the genes selected will have to be from the parents gene pool, you wont just be able to give them any ol' trait (so if you're parents are mogger you can be mogger, but if your parents are chopped you're capped at ltn anyways) and (c) the UN will probably kidnap and torture any n***a who tries this or sum shit

 

[Sovvton]

bump bc i fw this thread

 

[Sovvton]

another bump while im at it

 

[Deleted Member 67860]

Nice chatgpt guys

 

[reptiles]

a rare engaging and thought-provoking thread (ironic coming from me ik)

anyways i would disagree from three standpoints:

1. lifestyle habits will still heavily affect looks, and with everything becoming more digitalised and a lot of the younger generations becoming pretty averse to hanging out outside - it looks like general human habits are gonna get even worse

2. theres still so many gene combinations that play into the outcome of a feature as simple as the nose, that even if its possible i think it will take even longer than a few generations to be able to get good at figuring out which is the best out of each minutely different gene pairing to create certain outcomes, not to mention the parents will likely have to have the genes that are being selected, so subhumans might be able to make mtns at best

3. i dont see it being made legal even for experimentation due to ethical reasons, there will probably be some that do it like political leaders, billionaires or ultra rich celebs but i think the other 99.999% of the human population will still be popping out babies the old fashioned way

tl;dr:

i dont think its possible, but if it is (a) it will take an extremely long time to figure out (b) i think the genes selected will have to be from the parents gene pool, you wont just be able to give them any ol' trait (so if you're parents are mogger you can be mogger, but if your parents are chopped you're capped at ltn anyways) and (c) the UN will probably kidnap and torture any n***a who tries this or sum shit

I don’t disagree that the heritability estimate for looks is around 0.6. The modifiable factors mainly include the angle of the maxilla and how it grows, along with the angle of the jaw. But overall, features like the tragus, the meatus, the shape, size, and definition of the jaw, and the total projection of the maxilla—these are all highly heritable traits.

You can apply the breeder’s equation here. If the rate of selection equals the heritability (let’s say 0.6), you multiply that by the selection differential. So, you subtract the average population’s jaw measurements from those of you and your partner. If the result is something like 8, then the next generation could see an increase of around 8 mm. That’s basically how it works. This is why eugenics is effective—traits build up across generations, and it can be surprisingly fast when there’s consistent selection

Genetic recombination is real, and yes, it introduces some unpredictability. But the rate of random mutation per generation is low, and even when it fails in one case, it works in many others. For every one case where it fails, nine more succeed.
This is why it’s baffling that governments are pouring billions into useless education reforms instead of genetics research. Why not invest in identifying and targeting the genes related to intelligence? You’d think governments would want a smarter, more capable population—with lower crime rates. Why do you think Black communities have higher crime rates? It’s linked to genetics—particularly lower fluid intelligence. This isn’t some distant-future sci-fi concept involving CRISPR/Cas9; the technology exists today. We can already start making progress.


And yes, if you’re a low-tier normie now, your child could be a mid-tier normie. The next generation, a high-tier normie. After that, maybe a "Chad-lite." It’s all about increasing the likelihood over generations. It’s not just about your genome—it’s about your children’s genome, and then theirs

The real reason this isn’t becoming mainstream is because people recoil at the word “eugenics.” And yes, it is eugenics—but it’s not Nazi-style genocide. It’s guided, statistical reproductive strategy.

Didn’t read a single molecule? Here’s the conclusion:


It absolutely is possible to do this right now. This isn’t some far-off future tech. I never claimed it would make you—or a low-tier normie—a Chad instantly. But over four generations, that lineage can get far, far closer to it. That’s how evolution works: if a trait is consistently selected for, it spreads through the population.


Basically your imagining this wrong it isn't your kids become white chad it's more like your child gains and point and there child gains a point like leveling system current chad then would be the final boss that's how that works it's not a 1 generation fix for that you would need cas9

 

[reptiles]

Nice chatgpt guys

Ummmm the grammer fixer is grok first of all and I wrote that myself if I used chatgpt it would be much smarter

 

[reptiles]

bump bc i fw this thread

People bumpless useless shit on this forum not actual eugenics that can help them and there kids

 

[Sovvton]

I don’t disagree that the heritability estimate for looks is around 0.6. The modifiable factors mainly include the angle of the maxilla and how it grows, along with the angle of the jaw. But overall, features like the tragus, the meatus, the shape, size, and definition of the jaw, and the total projection of the maxilla—these are all highly heritable traits.

You can apply the breeder’s equation here. If the rate of selection equals the heritability (let’s say 0.6), you multiply that by the selection differential. So, you subtract the average population’s jaw measurements from those of you and your partner. If the result is something like 8, then the next generation could see an increase of around 8 mm. That’s basically how it works. This is why eugenics is effective—traits build up across generations, and it can be surprisingly fast when there’s consistent selection

Genetic recombination is real, and yes, it introduces some unpredictability. But the rate of random mutation per generation is low, and even when it fails in one case, it works in many others. For every one case where it fails, nine more succeed.
This is why it’s baffling that governments are pouring billions into useless education reforms instead of genetics research. Why not invest in identifying and targeting the genes related to intelligence? You’d think governments would want a smarter, more capable population—with lower crime rates. Why do you think Black communities have higher crime rates? It’s linked to genetics—particularly lower fluid intelligence. This isn’t some distant-future sci-fi concept involving CRISPR/Cas9; the technology exists today. We can already start making progress.


And yes, if you’re a low-tier normie now, your child could be a mid-tier normie. The next generation, a high-tier normie. After that, maybe a "Chad-lite." It’s all about increasing the likelihood over generations. It’s not just about your genome—it’s about your children’s genome, and then theirs

The real reason this isn’t becoming mainstream is because people recoil at the word “eugenics.” And yes, it is eugenics—but it’s not Nazi-style genocide. It’s guided, statistical reproductive strategy.

Didn’t read a single molecule? Here’s the conclusion:


It absolutely is possible to do this right now. This isn’t some far-off future tech. I never claimed it would make you—or a low-tier normie—a Chad instantly. But over four generations, that lineage can get far, far closer to it. That’s how evolution works: if a trait is consistently selected for, it spreads through the population.


Basically your imagining this wrong it isn't your kids become white chad it's more like your child gains and point and there child gains a point like leveling system current chad then would be the final boss that's how that works it's not a 1 generation fix for that you would need cas9

moustache man obviously had a large part in giving it a bad rep, but i get why eugenics aren't pushed, i believe it partly comes from the natural human want of nature to take its course

its why things like looksmaxxing/hardmaxxing, studying, wageslaving and just putting in a lot of effort to do accomplish anything is generally frowned upon and considered lame, we want effortlessness

eugenics is the exact opposite of this, selectively making the species better, from a logical and an evolutionary psychology standpoint all of humanity should be thrilled to assure that our next generations fare better than us however the unnaturalness of it it is very off-putting

that + the fact that i think jealousy also plays a part subconsciously, i know that it does for me and it probably does for many others, i consider myself to have pretty good genes all around and i think im pretty close to the maximum for how well i could've turned out (at least facially and height wise), so why should the next generation be guaranteed to hit their maximum genetic potential when i had to rely on pure luck to be how i am? obviously i dont want to risk my kids being subhuman, but i also dont want other people to be able to drastically improve their genes and reach our level

like you said it devalues everything about the current state of the world genetically, looks, iq (although i dont agree with the take about blacks being lower iq but thats a whole nother discussion for another day) and even things such as mental health or ntness, it sounds like bluepill cope but i think everyone deep down has a core understanding that we need subhumans to balance out those with top tier genetics, and thats why people turn their nose up at eugenics

 

[Deleted Member 70402]

When will u post mogger race rage bait

 

[Deleted Member 60441]

Over for Alain Delon

I partly agree with this thread but don't oversimplify the concept of good looks

 

[reptiles]

When will u post mogger race rage bait

I don't know tbqh I've been a bad goy and the adl has reported

 

[reptiles]

moustache man obviously had a large part in giving it a bad rep, but i get why eugenics aren't pushed, i believe it partly comes from the natural human want of nature to take its course

its why things like looksmaxxing/hardmaxxing, studying, wageslaving and just putting in a lot of effort to do accomplish anything is generally frowned upon and considered lame, we want effortlessness

eugenics is the exact opposite of this, selectively making the species better, from a logical and an evolutionary psychology standpoint all of humanity should be thrilled to assure that our next generations fare better than us however the unnaturalness of it it is very off-putting

that + the fact that i think jealousy also plays a part subconsciously, i know that it does for me and it probably does for many others, i consider myself to have pretty good genes all around and i think im pretty close to the maximum for how well i could've turned out (at least facially and height wise), so why should the next generation be guaranteed to hit their maximum genetic potential when i had to rely on pure luck to be how i am? obviously i dont want to risk my kids being subhuman, but i also dont want other people to be able to drastically improve their genes and reach our level

like you said it devalues everything about the current state of the world genetically, looks, iq (although i dont agree with the take about blacks being lower iq but thats a whole nother discussion for another day) and even things such as mental health or ntness, it sounds like bluepill cope but i think everyone deep down has a core understanding that we need subhumans to balance out those with top tier genetics, and thats why people turn their nose up at eugenics

1. Nature isn’t a conscious process; it’s an unconscious, random mechanism that works but isn’t perfect. It’s blind but helps people adapt to their environment. Embryo selection skips the middleman, ensuring the best allele proportions. For example, if a kid’s genetic potential is a low-tier normie, selecting the best embryos could raise that to a high-mid-tier or mid-tier normie. The next generation might reach high-tier normie status. It doesn’t take long if you have enough eggs and sperm—essentially infinite. You could screen thousands of embryos to choose the best possible. The issue is that harvesting ovaries is expensive. If the government stepped in, it would be far cheaper. This is technology the government should support—it could create a more moral, hardworking, and prosperous population.

By the way, I don’t understand why some groups struggle to accept they may have lower IQ due to genetics. Why is that hard to accept? With embryo selection, you can address it in 3-4 generations—that’s about 100 years. That could transform a struggling country into a first-world nation quickly. This is why I dislike non-black-pilled populations. Why ignore genes, the foundation of your brain and human behavior? It’s like ignoring the jack of spades in a deck of 52—you just don’t do it.

1. Who decides what’s natural? This is an ecological fallacy. In nature, chimpanzees engage in violent behaviors—is that right or logical? No, it’s illogical and immoral. Just because something happens in nature doesn’t make it right. Humans control nature, not the other way around. That’s the whole point of embryo selection.
2. You’re falling into a sunk cost fallacy. Just because you suffered doesn’t mean your kids should. Suffering shouldn’t exist if it can be fixed, and it can be here. I guarantee you didn’t hit your genetic ceiling because your father didn’t select from 5,000 embryos with sperm quality checks—he chose randomly through reproduction. You might hit your ceiling, but it’s not guaranteed. With embryo selection, your ceiling and your kids’ ceilings would be higher. It’s unfair for them to go through hardship just because you did. If that’s the case, why bring them into the world? It’s illogical and immoral.
3. I disagree—the existence of “subhumans” shows dysgenics, which isn’t good. How is it genetically beneficial if the ratio of less desirable traits is increasing while the ratio of optimal traits (“Chads”) is shrinking? This proves we need eugenics. Otherwise, you’re saying people should suffer with conditions like Down syndrome. Why should they? Opposing embryo selection is essentially supporting suffering—it’s illogical.

Normies are shortsighted. If they understood the lives their children could have with black-pilled knowledge, so many issues could be fixed in 3-4 generations.

 

[reptiles]

Over for Alain Delon

I partly agree with this thread but don't oversimplify the concept of good looks

All I’m saying is, if the bell curve for attractiveness is currently a 5/10, in four generations it could shift to a 7/10. If Alain Delon is a 9/10, imagine 2% of the population reaching his level of attractiveness. That doesn’t sound like much until you do the math. In the U.S., that would mean 6,720,000 men with Alain Delon’s level of attractiveness. This is scalable because your son has a different genetic baseline than you, and his kids will have an even better one, and so on. People don’t seem to understand that this is easily fixable.

This is just 1 example you could do this in India or Pakistan and you can get a lot more salludon looking looking dudes

 

[Deleted Member 60441]

All I’m saying is, if the bell curve for attractiveness is currently a 5/10, in four generations it could shift to a 7/10. If Alain Delon is a 9/10, imagine 2% of the population reaching his level of attractiveness. That doesn’t sound like much until you do the math. In the U.S., that would mean 6,720,000 men with Alain Delon’s level of attractiveness. This is scalable because your son has a different genetic baseline than you, and his kids will have an even better one, and so on. People don’t seem to understand that this is easily fixable.

This is just 1 example you could do this in India or Pakistan and you can get a lot more salludon looking looking dudes

this seemingly easy solution “hides” more or less controversial implications

It’s not so simple and looks is not tridimensional

 

[reptiles]

this seemingly easy solution “hides” more or less controversial implications

It’s not so simple and looks is not tridimensional

And what are those controversial implications that you can stack genetic potential over generations we do this in cattle already why did evolution end below the face for humans

 

[Deleted Member 60441]

this in cattle already why did evolution end below the face for humans

Alright