Selective breeding, genetic manipulation, engineered upbringing with carefully controlled environments for best development. I want a world full of people who each have the potential to achieve as many things as they are able to. The ultimate cause of all the problems in the world is natural inequalities, remove those and everything we struggle with as a species goes along with it.
I cannot agree more. I hate centralization of most things. the only time I support centralization is as a means against centralization. That's why I propose unregulated Free-Market designer babies.
That’s all well and good- as long as it’s us deciding the desirable traits…. The essence of Nature IS natural inequities. Hence only the strong and well adapted survive. As we all know, the concept of the able bodied providing for the need of the unable- or even worse, the unwilling- of others in a social compact is foreign to the animal world - save maybe a few exceptions….
The civilized world used to take care of the unabled. It is now subverted to take care of the unwilling (as long as they enable their (((masters))).)
I'd say some qualities are generally preferred in humanity, and some across all species and environments. Then there are the characteristics that are more suited to thriving in specific niches, and those that are more culturally favored than naturally advantageous (though one such as I would argue that things like culture and politics and technology are all extensions of the human phenotype).
You can say that a human with a higher genetic potential for reaching some greater level of capability in one or more areas is pretty cut and dry as an advantage, We all want to be of higher intelligence, or to have a personality type that is more correlated to being successful. Being taller or shorter may not be as beneficial as being of the most optimal height in between the extremes, and being stronger, faster, more flexible, or otherwise more physically capable is probably not going to be seen by anyone as a trait whose advantage is up to debate.
As far as attractiveness goes some traits are universally seen as more desirable across all human cultures, asian features that produce greater neoteny are seen as more desirable in women and do not have a severely negative effect on men, european features that are more recessive such as skin, hair, and eye colors with less pigmentation are also seen as being more desirable even in the cultures that emerged from heavily dark-colored races, and both of these seem to be biological universals. We like mesomorphic builds most in men and women are not severely harmed by possessing it as it could emphasize their natural curves, especially when paired with an hourglass figure of fat distribution. So a natural predisposition to low-fat musculature tends to be a universal preference for both sexes.
We can say that some traits which are more attractive on a male are less attractive on a female, such as a pronounced jaw, but I bet with enough experimentation we could develop the plan for the most ideal genetic blueprint to optimize the attractiveness of a child regardless of their sex. The free market is wonderful at encouraging this, it's probably the natural development from plastic surgery, to altering the DNA of the person from before they were born to ensure they'd be born beautiful.
When everyone's good looking by nature the world becomes a better place, just as when everyone is just as capable in all areas and armed with a good personality, and without any physical or psychological issues resulting from their genetic code.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 1.5 yearsDec 28, 2023 04:15:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 3 points 1.5 yearsDec 10, 2023 16:50:43 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 2 points 1.5 yearsDec 10, 2023 16:59:58 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] kammmmak
[ - ] kammmmak 3 points 1.5 yearsDec 10, 2023 16:29:07 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne 3 points 1.5 yearsDec 10, 2023 16:05:43 ago (+3/-0)
I'm already Master race.
I just want to get rid of the lesser specieis
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 1 point 1.5 yearsDec 10, 2023 18:08:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] xmasskull
[ - ] xmasskull 1 point 1.5 yearsDec 10, 2023 18:05:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] DARTH_VARIANT
[ - ] DARTH_VARIANT 1 point 1.5 yearsDec 10, 2023 17:42:47 ago (+1/-0)
The essence of Nature IS natural inequities. Hence only the strong and well adapted survive.
As we all know, the concept of the able bodied providing for the need of the unable- or even worse, the unwilling- of others in a social compact is foreign to the animal world - save maybe a few exceptions….
The civilized world used to take care of the unabled.
It is now subverted to take care of the unwilling (as long as they enable their (((masters))).)
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist [op] 1 point 1.5 yearsDec 10, 2023 18:48:29 ago (+1/-0)
You can say that a human with a higher genetic potential for reaching some greater level of capability in one or more areas is pretty cut and dry as an advantage, We all want to be of higher intelligence, or to have a personality type that is more correlated to being successful. Being taller or shorter may not be as beneficial as being of the most optimal height in between the extremes, and being stronger, faster, more flexible, or otherwise more physically capable is probably not going to be seen by anyone as a trait whose advantage is up to debate.
As far as attractiveness goes some traits are universally seen as more desirable across all human cultures, asian features that produce greater neoteny are seen as more desirable in women and do not have a severely negative effect on men, european features that are more recessive such as skin, hair, and eye colors with less pigmentation are also seen as being more desirable even in the cultures that emerged from heavily dark-colored races, and both of these seem to be biological universals. We like mesomorphic builds most in men and women are not severely harmed by possessing it as it could emphasize their natural curves, especially when paired with an hourglass figure of fat distribution. So a natural predisposition to low-fat musculature tends to be a universal preference for both sexes.
We can say that some traits which are more attractive on a male are less attractive on a female, such as a pronounced jaw, but I bet with enough experimentation we could develop the plan for the most ideal genetic blueprint to optimize the attractiveness of a child regardless of their sex. The free market is wonderful at encouraging this, it's probably the natural development from plastic surgery, to altering the DNA of the person from before they were born to ensure they'd be born beautiful.
When everyone's good looking by nature the world becomes a better place, just as when everyone is just as capable in all areas and armed with a good personality, and without any physical or psychological issues resulting from their genetic code.