Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Hereditarians And Designer Babies

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 7:20:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Recently I have begun to notice the individuals who label themselves under the banner of Hereditarians. The premise of the Hereditarian ideology is that genetics act as the primary indicator of an individuals intelligence and capacity to function in society. I firmly disagree with their contention [exceptions being cases of mental retardation and neurological disorders and even then they can be quite intelligent and capable] for intelligence can be differed into many different types and the intelligence of ones parents cannot accurately predict the intellectual outcome of ones offspring. I would also like to point out another type of Hereditarian who bases intellect on terms of race. They base their assertions on causation correlation fallacies and an statistical fallacies [but I shall not go into that now].

They believe that they should impose sanctions against proposed "genetic inferiors" in order to benefit society and the genes of the human race as well as believing all that is genetic is inevitable and is best prevented with semi-Darwinist and eugenic policies and claim them to be ethical.

Since their premise is based on an proposed belief that there is a smart gene why do they not attempt to isolate it and insert it into the embryos of unborn children. They often complain that the "genetic inferiors" are resistant to their policies which results in setbacks to proposed genetic improvement, but what do they truly expect? Do they sincerely believe people shall take oppression lying down? If they truly maintained any ethical integrity would it not be best for them to simply insert the proposed superior genes into unborn children in order to benefit the greatest number of people. But the way I see it they generally wish to maintain superiority by maintaining an individual class as their genetic inferiors.

Now I do promote the genetic modification of humans, but I do not promote the fallacies of Hereditarianism. I Genetically modify children to increase lifespan and remove many ailments which currently affect modern humans not to promote some silly notion of superiority.

So what are your opinions?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 8:11:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Trial and error. Until it is tested we will not know. Genetics is complex and will not be fully understand on the first try.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 12:07:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 8:11:11 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
Trial and error. Until it is tested we will not know. Genetics is complex and will not be fully understand on the first try.

Wha?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 6:08:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 5:37:33 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Philosophically, I'm certainly with the transhumanists.

Thanks for agreeing with me, the use of technology can allow for the advancement of humans into the future.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 6:21:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother.

Mother's choice isn't relevant; it's eugenics still. Don't confuse actual eugenics with the purely negative stereotypes.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 6:56:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 6:21:42 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother.

Mother's choice isn't relevant; it's eugenics still. Don't confuse actual eugenics with the purely negative stereotypes.

Knowing the genes of ones offspring does not count as eugenics, eugenics is taking action.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 8:03:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].

It doesn't matter if it's completely up to the mother, the term I used was "negative eugenics" and the concept doesn't hinge on whether it's a government policy. Negative eugenics is defined as "improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit" which is what prenatal genetic testing does in practice. It's in effect a form of voluntary eugenics.

I didn't say it was the predominant factor, but it has been confirmed to be a factor. They have identified certain genes that relate to it, and to claim it's completely up to their environment is completely going against modern science. I'm sorry if I'm challenging your feelings about free will but genes matter significantly. They make up a large portion of your personality and there are major similarities even when the environments are radically different.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 8:56:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 8:03:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].

It doesn't matter if it's completely up to the mother, the term I used was "negative eugenics" and the concept doesn't hinge on whether it's a government policy. Negative eugenics is defined as "improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit" which is what prenatal genetic testing does in practice. It's in effect a form of voluntary eugenics.

I didn't say it was the predominant factor, but it has been confirmed to be a factor. They have identified certain genes that relate to it, and to claim it's completely up to their environment is completely going against modern science. I'm sorry if I'm challenging your feelings about free will but genes matter significantly. They make up a large portion of your personality and there are major similarities even when the environments are radically different.

You said 60% so that is predominant, and I have never said that intellect is 100% environmental. I am sorry if I am challenging your views but genes are not the predominant factor 50% and less is an possibility but not 60%. And you still fail to address my transhumanism.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 10:52:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 6:56:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:21:42 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother.

Mother's choice isn't relevant; it's eugenics still. Don't confuse actual eugenics with the purely negative stereotypes.

Knowing the genes of ones offspring does not count as eugenics, eugenics is taking action.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

... Yes I know what eugenics is. You stated the mother then applies abortion, or can do :. Eugenics.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2011 11:56:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 10:52:22 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:56:10 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 6:21:42 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother.

Mother's choice isn't relevant; it's eugenics still. Don't confuse actual eugenics with the purely negative stereotypes.

Knowing the genes of ones offspring does not count as eugenics, eugenics is taking action.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

... Yes I know what eugenics is. You stated the mother then applies abortion, or can do :. Eugenics.

I stated choice, not necessarily fulfilling the action, it is not eugenics if she does not fulfill the action [or if she does it for any reason other than the betterment of the specie], you may potentially define it as voluntary eugenics but it makes no difference to me.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 12:15:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 11:56:07 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I stated choice, not necessarily fulfilling the action, it is not eugenics if she does not fulfill the action.

Never said it was any different. Action is the requisite.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 12:30:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 8:56:51 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:03:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].

It doesn't matter if it's completely up to the mother, the term I used was "negative eugenics" and the concept doesn't hinge on whether it's a government policy. Negative eugenics is defined as "improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit" which is what prenatal genetic testing does in practice. It's in effect a form of voluntary eugenics.

I didn't say it was the predominant factor, but it has been confirmed to be a factor. They have identified certain genes that relate to it, and to claim it's completely up to their environment is completely going against modern science. I'm sorry if I'm challenging your feelings about free will but genes matter significantly. They make up a large portion of your personality and there are major similarities even when the environments are radically different.

You said 60% so that is predominant, and I have never said that intellect is 100% environmental. I am sorry if I am challenging your views but genes are not the predominant factor 50% and less is an possibility but not 60%. And you still fail to address my transhumanism.

I said 60% for personality. It was just a figure I remember hearing in Psych, and in reality it is controversial and is really its own debate. If I'm not mistaken more recent studies in evolutionary psychology support a more hereditary-based model. I would implore you to look into twin studies because twins reared in different environments have astounding similarities including IQ. I told you I wasn't sure percentage-wise about intellect, and when I talk about intellect I'm referring to IQ.

I don't recall our conversation mentioning transhumanism or me explicitly stating to be against it. If you want to open a dialogue on this topic I would like to hear your definition. In response to your assertion that you never said intellect was 100% environmental, I'm a little confused because of: "second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people" which would imply that there is no hereditary component so that leaves...

It's 1:30 am so if I'm misinterpreting your views please tell me.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 12:44:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/14/2011 11:56:07 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I stated choice, not necessarily fulfilling the action, it is not eugenics if she does not fulfill the action [or if she does it for any reason other than the betterment of the specie], you may potentially define it as voluntary eugenics but it makes no difference to me.

see now thats an interesting question. is it still eugenics if its not done for the benefit of the speices, but rather simply because a mother would rather not raise a disabled child? i am inclined to agree with SRW on this one. (weird) the concept of eugenics seems to imply an effort to purge the gene pool of undesirable traits. parents who have their children screened for genetic diseases (or any trait really) don't give a thought to the gene pool at all... they just want their child to turn out a certain way.

its like with languages dying. no one is going out of their way to destroy the native languages of any groups of people, but they are losing speakers and gradually dying out nonetheless. this isn't due to any effort to control how people speak, but rather is the result of many individual actions accumulated on a large scale. similarly, with designer babies, no one is trying to eliminate any genes from the gene pool, but just doesn't care for their child to have some particular trait. it seems to me that if its not a conscious effort to guide the genetic development of the species then its not eugenics, its just the large scale result of many small decisions.

also, just to clarify, twin studies have shown that intelligence is 50-70% heritable, which means that 50-70 percent of the variation between individuals in a given group is due to genetic rather than environmental factors.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 12:54:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/15/2011 12:44:39 AM, belle wrote:
At 5/14/2011 11:56:07 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I stated choice, not necessarily fulfilling the action, it is not eugenics if she does not fulfill the action [or if she does it for any reason other than the betterment of the specie], you may potentially define it as voluntary eugenics but it makes no difference to me.

see now thats an interesting question. is it still eugenics if its not done for the benefit of the speices, but rather simply because a mother would rather not raise a disabled child? i am inclined to agree with SRW on this one. (weird) the concept of eugenics seems to imply an effort to purge the gene pool of undesirable traits. parents who have their children screened for genetic diseases (or any trait really) don't give a thought to the gene pool at all... they just want their child to turn out a certain way.

its like with languages dying. no one is going out of their way to destroy the native languages of any groups of people, but they are losing speakers and gradually dying out nonetheless. this isn't due to any effort to control how people speak, but rather is the result of many individual actions accumulated on a large scale. similarly, with designer babies, no one is trying to eliminate any genes from the gene pool, but just doesn't care for their child to have some particular trait. it seems to me that if its not a conscious effort to guide the genetic development of the species then its not eugenics, its just the large scale result of many small decisions.

also, just to clarify, twin studies have shown that intelligence is 50-70% heritable, which means that 50-70 percent of the variation between individuals in a given group is due to genetic rather than environmental factors.

Exactly. It's much different from the eugenics of 70 years ago, if we even choose to call it that. If anything, it is voluntary and uncoerced "eugenics" consisting of many individual decisions resulting naturally from the use of a technology.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 8:28:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/15/2011 12:30:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:56:51 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:03:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].

It doesn't matter if it's completely up to the mother, the term I used was "negative eugenics" and the concept doesn't hinge on whether it's a government policy. Negative eugenics is defined as "improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit" which is what prenatal genetic testing does in practice. It's in effect a form of voluntary eugenics.

I didn't say it was the predominant factor, but it has been confirmed to be a factor. They have identified certain genes that relate to it, and to claim it's completely up to their environment is completely going against modern science. I'm sorry if I'm challenging your feelings about free will but genes matter significantly. They make up a large portion of your personality and there are major similarities even when the environments are radically different.

You said 60% so that is predominant, and I have never said that intellect is 100% environmental. I am sorry if I am challenging your views but genes are not the predominant factor 50% and less is an possibility but not 60%. And you still fail to address my transhumanism.

I said 60% for personality. It was just a figure I remember hearing in Psych, and in reality it is controversial and is really its own debate. If I'm not mistaken more recent studies in evolutionary psychology support a more hereditary-based model. I would implore you to look into twin studies because twins reared in different environments have astounding similarities including IQ. I told you I wasn't sure percentage-wise about intellect, and when I talk about intellect I'm referring to IQ.

I don't recall our conversation mentioning transhumanism or me explicitly stating to be against it. If you want to open a dialogue on this topic I would like to hear your definition. In response to your assertion that you never said intellect was 100% environmental, I'm a little confused because of: "second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people" which would imply that there is no hereditary component so that leaves...

It's 1:30 am so if I'm misinterpreting your views please tell me.

My OP talked about transhumanism.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 10:58:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/15/2011 8:28:55 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/15/2011 12:30:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:56:51 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:03:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].

It doesn't matter if it's completely up to the mother, the term I used was "negative eugenics" and the concept doesn't hinge on whether it's a government policy. Negative eugenics is defined as "improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit" which is what prenatal genetic testing does in practice. It's in effect a form of voluntary eugenics.

I didn't say it was the predominant factor, but it has been confirmed to be a factor. They have identified certain genes that relate to it, and to claim it's completely up to their environment is completely going against modern science. I'm sorry if I'm challenging your feelings about free will but genes matter significantly. They make up a large portion of your personality and there are major similarities even when the environments are radically different.

You said 60% so that is predominant, and I have never said that intellect is 100% environmental. I am sorry if I am challenging your views but genes are not the predominant factor 50% and less is an possibility but not 60%. And you still fail to address my transhumanism.

I said 60% for personality. It was just a figure I remember hearing in Psych, and in reality it is controversial and is really its own debate. If I'm not mistaken more recent studies in evolutionary psychology support a more hereditary-based model. I would implore you to look into twin studies because twins reared in different environments have astounding similarities including IQ. I told you I wasn't sure percentage-wise about intellect, and when I talk about intellect I'm referring to IQ.

I don't recall our conversation mentioning transhumanism or me explicitly stating to be against it. If you want to open a dialogue on this topic I would like to hear your definition. In response to your assertion that you never said intellect was 100% environmental, I'm a little confused because of: "second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people" which would imply that there is no hereditary component so that leaves...

It's 1:30 am so if I'm misinterpreting your views please tell me.

My OP talked about transhumanism.

Removing the potential for ailments is one thing, but when genetic engineering comes to altering intellect or strength I would advise being extremely careful that a) These benefits are not just given those who can pay and b) That a new class of wealthy, genetically superior elites does not emerge. This would have disastrous social consequences, and this issue would seem too important to leave to the free market.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 2:36:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/15/2011 10:58:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/15/2011 8:28:55 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/15/2011 12:30:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:56:51 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:03:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].

It doesn't matter if it's completely up to the mother, the term I used was "negative eugenics" and the concept doesn't hinge on whether it's a government policy. Negative eugenics is defined as "improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit" which is what prenatal genetic testing does in practice. It's in effect a form of voluntary eugenics.

I didn't say it was the predominant factor, but it has been confirmed to be a factor. They have identified certain genes that relate to it, and to claim it's completely up to their environment is completely going against modern science. I'm sorry if I'm challenging your feelings about free will but genes matter significantly. They make up a large portion of your personality and there are major similarities even when the environments are radically different.

You said 60% so that is predominant, and I have never said that intellect is 100% environmental. I am sorry if I am challenging your views but genes are not the predominant factor 50% and less is an possibility but not 60%. And you still fail to address my transhumanism.

I said 60% for personality. It was just a figure I remember hearing in Psych, and in reality it is controversial and is really its own debate. If I'm not mistaken more recent studies in evolutionary psychology support a more hereditary-based model. I would implore you to look into twin studies because twins reared in different environments have astounding similarities including IQ. I told you I wasn't sure percentage-wise about intellect, and when I talk about intellect I'm referring to IQ.

I don't recall our conversation mentioning transhumanism or me explicitly stating to be against it. If you want to open a dialogue on this topic I would like to hear your definition. In response to your assertion that you never said intellect was 100% environmental, I'm a little confused because of: "second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people" which would imply that there is no hereditary component so that leaves...

It's 1:30 am so if I'm misinterpreting your views please tell me.

My OP talked about transhumanism.

Removing the potential for ailments is one thing, but when genetic engineering comes to altering intellect or strength I would advise being extremely careful that a) These benefits are not just given those who can pay and b) That a new class of wealthy, genetically superior elites does not emerge. This would have disastrous social consequences, and this issue would seem too important to leave to the free market.

Well eugenics would result in those problems, and this system would be relatively cheap to implement if we go ahead and use some of the similar methods we use on livestock upon humans [we could make this as readily available as aspirin if done correctly].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 3:02:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/15/2011 2:36:52 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/15/2011 10:58:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/15/2011 8:28:55 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/15/2011 12:30:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:56:51 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:03:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].

It doesn't matter if it's completely up to the mother, the term I used was "negative eugenics" and the concept doesn't hinge on whether it's a government policy. Negative eugenics is defined as "improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit" which is what prenatal genetic testing does in practice. It's in effect a form of voluntary eugenics.

I didn't say it was the predominant factor, but it has been confirmed to be a factor. They have identified certain genes that relate to it, and to claim it's completely up to their environment is completely going against modern science. I'm sorry if I'm challenging your feelings about free will but genes matter significantly. They make up a large portion of your personality and there are major similarities even when the environments are radically different.

You said 60% so that is predominant, and I have never said that intellect is 100% environmental. I am sorry if I am challenging your views but genes are not the predominant factor 50% and less is an possibility but not 60%. And you still fail to address my transhumanism.

I said 60% for personality. It was just a figure I remember hearing in Psych, and in reality it is controversial and is really its own debate. If I'm not mistaken more recent studies in evolutionary psychology support a more hereditary-based model. I would implore you to look into twin studies because twins reared in different environments have astounding similarities including IQ. I told you I wasn't sure percentage-wise about intellect, and when I talk about intellect I'm referring to IQ.

I don't recall our conversation mentioning transhumanism or me explicitly stating to be against it. If you want to open a dialogue on this topic I would like to hear your definition. In response to your assertion that you never said intellect was 100% environmental, I'm a little confused because of: "second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people" which would imply that there is no hereditary component so that leaves...

It's 1:30 am so if I'm misinterpreting your views please tell me.

My OP talked about transhumanism.

Removing the potential for ailments is one thing, but when genetic engineering comes to altering intellect or strength I would advise being extremely careful that a) These benefits are not just given those who can pay and b) That a new class of wealthy, genetically superior elites does not emerge. This would have disastrous social consequences, and this issue would seem too important to leave to the free market.

Well eugenics would result in those problems, and this system would be relatively cheap to implement if we go ahead and use some of the similar methods we use on livestock upon humans [we could make this as readily available as aspirin if done correctly].

What problems? Where do you get your facts? No offense, but I feel like you're just saying whatever pops into your head. Wait a few years, learn a little more, and then revisit this topic.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2011 3:37:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/15/2011 3:02:03 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/15/2011 2:36:52 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/15/2011 10:58:25 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/15/2011 8:28:55 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/15/2011 12:30:41 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:56:51 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 8:03:19 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/14/2011 5:35:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 5/14/2011 4:27:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Nature does account for a good portion of intelligence, that fact is undeniable. I have heard nature accounts for like 60% of personality, and I can't quote an exact number in terms of intelligence but it definitely matters. From the way you described it, it does seem to be just another radical stance in the tradition of the eugenicists from the early 20th century. Seems similar ideologically to me.

I'm not a bio major, but I would think that intelligence is not just determined by one gene, insofar as it is natural. I would like to hear from someone who is educated in biology to comment on this. Anyway, the view seems very extreme and is highly unlikely to gain much of a following due to the idea of labeling people as "genetic inferiors" and moreover advocating some kind of sanctions on them.

I'm taking bioethics next year, but it does seem like some form of negative eugenics is already taking place in the form of genetic screening. Once a mother hears her fetus has a strong chance of having down syndrome or some other genetic ailment the idea of abortion often becomes much more appealing.

Genetic Screening cannot be classified as a form of eugenics for it the choice of aborting the fetus is completely up to the mother. I would also like to add that stating that genes is the predominant variable of intellect is an incredibly fallacious statement, for one you must understand that there are many different types of intelligence so one means of classification cannot work, a second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people, a final thing to remember is that no gene has been isolated to give an individual intelligence [although I do believe that in the case of mental retardation that point changes, as well as genetic physical features which can potentially change which type of intelligence one is likely to develop].
http://www.helium.com...

And also how do you respond to the point I made about how if gene theory was correct we could always resort to genetic modification to solve the issue of intelligence [and also resolve physical problems].

It doesn't matter if it's completely up to the mother, the term I used was "negative eugenics" and the concept doesn't hinge on whether it's a government policy. Negative eugenics is defined as "improvement of the genetic makeup of a population by preventing the reproduction of the obviously unfit" which is what prenatal genetic testing does in practice. It's in effect a form of voluntary eugenics.

I didn't say it was the predominant factor, but it has been confirmed to be a factor. They have identified certain genes that relate to it, and to claim it's completely up to their environment is completely going against modern science. I'm sorry if I'm challenging your feelings about free will but genes matter significantly. They make up a large portion of your personality and there are major similarities even when the environments are radically different.

You said 60% so that is predominant, and I have never said that intellect is 100% environmental. I am sorry if I am challenging your views but genes are not the predominant factor 50% and less is an possibility but not 60%. And you still fail to address my transhumanism.

I said 60% for personality. It was just a figure I remember hearing in Psych, and in reality it is controversial and is really its own debate. If I'm not mistaken more recent studies in evolutionary psychology support a more hereditary-based model. I would implore you to look into twin studies because twins reared in different environments have astounding similarities including IQ. I told you I wasn't sure percentage-wise about intellect, and when I talk about intellect I'm referring to IQ.

I don't recall our conversation mentioning transhumanism or me explicitly stating to be against it. If you want to open a dialogue on this topic I would like to hear your definition. In response to your assertion that you never said intellect was 100% environmental, I'm a little confused because of: "second point is that intelligent people are just as likely to give birth to stupid people as stupid people to smart people" which would imply that there is no hereditary component so that leaves...

It's 1:30 am so if I'm misinterpreting your views please tell me.

My OP talked about transhumanism.

Removing the potential for ailments is one thing, but when genetic engineering comes to altering intellect or strength I would advise being extremely careful that a) These benefits are not just given those who can pay and b) That a new class of wealthy, genetically superior elites does not emerge. This would have disastrous social consequences, and this issue would seem too important to leave to the free market.

Well eugenics would result in those problems, and this system would be relatively cheap to implement if we go ahead and use some of the similar methods we use on livestock upon humans [we could make this as readily available as aspirin if done correctly].

What problems? Where do you get your facts? No offense, but I feel like you're just saying whatever pops into your head. Wait a few years, learn a little more, and then revisit this topic.

The issues a) and b) that you had proposed both talk about the rise of elitism and that is exactly what eugenics does, Transhumanism on the other hand has the potential to equalize the population. You wait a few years and study some basic social and biological science as well as the definitions of these terms, you seem to forget the things you post.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.