h a l f b a k e r yYou think: Aha! We go: ha, ha.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Eugenics SEO
Ok, so the personals sites have 32 million in the US, up to a billion participants globally, what if a eugenicist started telling the 99th percentile of awesome how to get more dates with people who wanted to have big families | |
I favor eugenics as well as genetically engineering human beings (Homo sapiens) to be much more intelligent, kinder, long lived, and beautiful than they are now (2020 AD).
But, you ask, what am I going to do about it?
Well, using spam software, advertising and SEO (Search engine optimization) I
could reach out to the 99th percentile of wonderfulness out there and teach them how to get lots, like 7-20 times more live meetup dates via online personals.
Further, I could emphasize things at the semi-automated dating scripts they modify and use that also attract people that like to have large families. John Von Neumann, Meet Marie Osmond!
Then, because some of it runs through my online presence, I can quantify how many more millions of genetically advantaged babies have been born from my software project worldwide. The internet says 32 million people are listed in US online personals, and that 30% of people have used an online personals ad at some time. Globally, if people at the developing world are using the phones with dating apps that suggests a 2.1 billion person opportunity. Otherwise, if its just PCs its about 1 billion people.
I'd probably have to figure out what I was doing, but if you just match the 99th percentile of wonderfulness with the 98th percentile of wonderfulness, 2% of a billion people is 20 million people in a eugenics favored romance. Optimistically if they have 3.5 children then that causes 35 million genetically advantaged children.
There's also room for math and a computer simulation. If I were a high quality eugenicist I would actually have a preference for particular named genes, alleles, and epigenetics. A computer simulation could tell me if coming from a large family is more effective at spreading beneficial genes than 99th percentile + 98th percentile matches.
So, of course, I would then build custom content and email for different computer-perceived genetic optima. The 99th percentile gets different dating site SEO automation than the 80th percentile.
How does the computer link the person to their genetics using only online content? With mass-processsing of personals site data, their findable social networking text (facebook), and anything the computer plausibly thinks they wrote (or imaged). The text is then numerically linked (correlated) to the psychometric called the big 5. Each of the big five factors has been repeatedly published as about 50% due to genetics. I think it is more than that.
Anyway, a dedicated hobbiest, or eugenicist with a spare $14,000 to commission the software could do it.
Judgement of Paris
https://en.wikipedi.../Judgement_of_Paris
Goddesses ... just as vain, capricious and petulant as human women, but with added smiting. [8th of 7, Dec 16 2020]
[link]
|
| |
//more intelligent, kinder, long lived, and beautiful// who decides? |
|
| |
[pomloc], I think I figured out intelligent, beautiful, and long lived. |
|
| |
Thanks for reminding me to come up with a way to address kinder. What does it mean to be kind. WHo is a kinder person? |
|
| |
What do you mean by intelligent? |
|
| |
Historically, Paris of Troy. |
|
| |
There's a slight problem with this programme being critically dependent on recruiting Paris of Troy to fill a key role... can't quite put my finger on the problem exactly... something to do with resilience of operations, or future-proofing, or something... |
|
| |
Well, you just need to recruit some surplus young royal, then wait for a major war to erupt. |
|
| |
If online dating/matching services do anything in terms of
data analysis and rules-based sifting of people's attributes to
determine who should be linked to who (as opposed to just
being random), then a similar kind of eugenics-like bias is
almost certainly already going on, but as a result of
unconscious biases being 'baked into' the algorithms by the
programmers and data analysts rather than deliberate
Daltonian eugenics. |
|
| |
OK so I see how this works. You get the wealthiest, most powerful people, and you breed them with each other across a continent or at least across a significant number of countries. They pass on their inherited wealth and their cumulative knowledge in how to extract more wealth from the oiks and they gradually get more and more control of society and resources. The more they get, the tighter their breeding programme becomes until over the course of a few hundred generations they have all evolved into inbred chinless twits with inflated senses of entitlement. |
|
| |
That could never happen, shirley ? Oh, wait ... |
|
| |
Do they end up with overlarge ears, a thing for ironing
shoelaces, and a complete
unawareness of the existence of cling-wrap? |
|
| |
Eugenics in my opinion is a shit idea.
Evolution is a direct response to external stimuli. A big external change equals a big species change or extinction, not because the entire species changes over night but because somewhere out there is a freak or two who can survive it.
Take HIV Aids for example, there are a few people who contracted it and shrugged it off. They are immune to something which was an instant death sentence for anyone else.
Had HIV swept across the planet and killed humans unchecked then these few people would be the only ones spreading their genes to the next generation where that immunity would be the new norm and an inability to shrug it off would make you the freak. |
|
| |
I feel that if you rid your species of freaks you've doomed that species to extinction. |
|
| |
That's why we seek to add the biological and technological distinctiveness of other species to our own ... |
|
| |
But did you have to include the neighbor's wandering sheep
in
that effort? Now the ram's gotten all jealous of the
competition. |
|
| |
I'm not sure this idea is so much eugenics as it is simply
DNA-optimized dating for the advantaged. One could argue
that by creating a more 'vertically challenging' marketplace
you could create more biological diversity (albeit with
many more errors and failures) by encouraging more likely
pairings of recessive traits in the genetically disadvantaged
hoi polloi. |
|
| |
I think the eugenicistists have it backwards: we need MORE
genetic diversity, not less. Everybody breeds with
everybody! |
|
| |