Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Eugenics

someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
eugenics.

thots
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
The_Great_Amalgam
Posts: 1,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:14:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Right now I feel like we have no need to control the population. We are not close to being truly overpopulated yet but that might change soon. So for today, no, for tommorow, maybe.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:21:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Gene editing is coming, and it's gunna be YUGE!

#MakeTheHumanGenomeGreatAgain
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 2:55:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

What are your thoughts on GMO's?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:04:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 2:55:30 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

What are your thoughts on GMO's?

The wave of the future.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:31:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:04:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:55:30 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

What are your thoughts on GMO's?

The wave of the future.

Do you see parallels between eugenics and GMO's in terms of improving the human condition?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 3:38:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:31:59 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:55:30 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

What are your thoughts on GMO's?

The wave of the future.

Do you see parallels between eugenics and GMO's in terms of improving the human condition?

Nope, completely different principles. GMOs are about making plants and animals more serviceable to people. It's essentially us customizing them for the purpose of symbiosis. Eugenics is about humans attempting to bypass natural selection and determine their own genetic destiny. Humans could be genetically modified in the pursuit of eugenics, but the same criticisms stand: that genetic diversity better extends a species' survivability than a subjective and artificial purity, and that natural selection will never be eliminated through eugenics due to its very nature. The drive to engage in genetics is itself an exercise in hubris, while the application of genetic modification to other animals and plants is just a refinement of plant and animal breeding processes which have been at work for millennia.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:20:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

At the very least, a mild form of eugenics is required to combat dysgenic breeding patterns. At the moment, IQ is negatively correlated with fertility at about a rate of .20 even within ethnic groups, such that the genotypic component of IQ - which amounts to about 75 percent of the total -- declines by around 1.2 IQ points per generation. If that's allowed to go on forever humanity will just collapse under its own stupidity. Until we possess a greater understanding of human genetics, I don't think eugenics should be pursued by aggressively selecting for certain desired traits; there are too many ways it could go wrong. Rather, we should just ensure that the traits we want to see proliferate in the population have a positive correlation with fertility (which we have at least some control over) so that over time the mean distribution on those traits will move in a positive direction but the genetic variance will stay roughly the same. Of course, this isn't feasible right now. People have turned against eugenics to the point of hysteria, at least in the United States. Embryo selection could, in theory, serve the same function as eugenics, but it's not developed enough yet, and it's not even guaranteed that people would be open to it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:26:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

How are humans naturally selected in the age of assistance?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:30:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:26:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

How are humans naturally selected in the age of assistance?

How are people supposed to stay alive if they can't find the welfare office on a map? Natural selection is as brutal as ever.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 6:52:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:30:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:26:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

How are humans naturally selected in the age of assistance?

How are people supposed to stay alive if they can't find the welfare office on a map? Natural selection is as brutal as ever.

Troof.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 7:23:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Something I think is perhaps concerning about the potential for designer babies; during most of human history, there was a very obvious difference between the wealthy and the poor classes, because only the wealthy could afford the nutrition and healthcare necessary to reach their full genetic physical and mental potential. Meaning the upper classes definitely averaged taller, stronger bodies and greater intelligence levels than the plebs, making the difference between them very visually apparent -- which would feed into the idea that they are genuinely a "superior stock" of human.

This gap has largely closed now to where most people in western nations reach their genetic potential, but with the high cost designer babies are going to have, we might see this gap re-emerge, and if this happens, you can expect to see increasing class-gaps, as people from middle-to-lower class families find themselves unable to compete for high-paying jobs against near super-humans, thus creating a vicious cycle of only designer babies growing up to be able to afford creating new designer babies.

Or maybe I've just seen 'Gattaca' one too many times, who knows.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 7:37:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 3:04:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:55:30 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

What are your thoughts on GMO's?

The wave of the future.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 7:43:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
David Attenborough says the medical advances have led to 95% of babies being born. Natural selection only accounts for 5%. He claims that is not enough to weed out the bad genes.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:30:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 7:43:38 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
David Attenborough says the medical advances have led to 95% of babies being born. Natural selection only accounts for 5%. He claims that is not enough to weed out the bad genes.


There's virtually not much selection-via-death anymore, true. That said, death isn't the only mechanism through which certain traits can be selected
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:39:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 8:30:30 PM, someloser wrote:
At 4/18/2016 7:43:38 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
David Attenborough says the medical advances have led to 95% of babies being born. Natural selection only accounts for 5%. He claims that is not enough to weed out the bad genes.


There's virtually not much selection-via-death anymore, true. That said, death isn't the only mechanism through which certain traits can be selected

Well, specifically, the only evolutionary trait that really matters for humans presently is the evolution of intellect, which does happen on a wide, accumulated scale, but not individually as society increasingly accommodates those with inferior brain genes. I agree, intellect isn't selected through natural birth selection, and we have a myriad of medicines and machines to cope with the physically weaker births that avoid natural selection.

Although it does put many of us at risk if our medicine and technology cannot compensate for our weaker immune systems in the event of the emergence of a supervirus.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:54:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:26:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

How are humans naturally selected in the age of assistance?

Yeah, Dylan has a point. Also, natural selection does not just function on the individual level, but on the social level as well. On the individual level, natural selection favors those who fit nicely into the overall machinery of the 'herd', while on the collective levels 'herds' are in conflict over resources on several levels. Natural selection in social animals is seldom atomized.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:56:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 8:54:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:26:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

How are humans naturally selected in the age of assistance?

Yeah, Dylan has a point. Also, natural selection does not just function on the individual level, but on the social level as well. On the individual level, natural selection favors those who fit nicely into the overall machinery of the 'herd', while on the collective levels 'herds' are in conflict over resources on several levels. Natural selection in social animals is seldom atomized.

I can't imagine a greater authority on natural selection than a Botanist.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:00:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
On-topic: https://jaymans.wordpress.com...
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:12:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 7:37:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 3:04:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:55:30 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/18/2016 2:52:18 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

Misguided, for the most part. Natural selection doesn't need any help.

What are your thoughts on GMO's?

The wave of the future.

https://www.youtube.com...

This doesn't take into account the fact that evolution normally takes place at the fringes of populations, then proliferates through competition once conditions change. For example, lets say we have a forest, on a plain, a mountain range, and another arm of the forest up into a secluded mountain valley. These are all the same species, but the trees up in the valley face more selective pressure when it comes to cold tolerance. For ages this situation is stable, until the climate on the plain shifts and becomes colder. When this happens, the trees in the valley now have an advantage, and their cold-tolerant genes will proliferate throughout the plain and eventually dominate as the older trees die out.

In the present day, there are people who live on the fringes. People in war-torn areas, people in xeric environments, people surviving in the cold, people who face population pressures and have to adapt to increased competition. All of these populations have traits which are selected for, both on the individual level, and on the societal level (social behavioral memes which make survival possible, like favoring suspicion over hospitality, or the reinforcing of tribal mentalities in war-torn areas. Societal trends which favor fierce competition and which control reproduction in overpopulated areas). In a large shift in climate or political situation, these 'fringes' will move into the center currently occupied by 'civilized' societies, if those civilized societies cannot cope with the changes which occur.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:16:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 9:12:49 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This doesn't take into account the fact that evolution normally takes place at the fringes of populations, then proliferates through competition once conditions change. For example, lets say we have a forest, on a plain, a mountain range, and another arm of the forest up into a secluded mountain valley. These are all the same species, but the trees up in the valley face more selective pressure when it comes to cold tolerance. For ages this situation is stable, until the climate on the plain shifts and becomes colder. When this happens, the trees in the valley now have an advantage, and their cold-tolerant genes will proliferate throughout the plain and eventually dominate as the older trees die out.

In the present day, there are people who live on the fringes. People in war-torn areas, people in xeric environments, people surviving in the cold, people who face population pressures and have to adapt to increased competition. All of these populations have traits which are selected for, both on the individual level, and on the societal level (social behavioral memes which make survival possible, like favoring suspicion over hospitality, or the reinforcing of tribal mentalities in war-torn areas. Societal trends which favor fierce competition and which control reproduction in overpopulated areas). In a large shift in climate or political situation, these 'fringes' will move into the center currently occupied by 'civilized' societies, if those civilized societies cannot cope with the changes which occur.

I don't know a lot about Eugenics but if it helps people already alive modify their genetic structure, that seems pretty useful. Natural selections doesn't help individuals who have "undesirable traits." Natural selections just means their lineage dies out and people with desirable traits live on.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 9:23:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 9:16:29 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/18/2016 9:12:49 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This doesn't take into account the fact that evolution normally takes place at the fringes of populations, then proliferates through competition once conditions change. For example, lets say we have a forest, on a plain, a mountain range, and another arm of the forest up into a secluded mountain valley. These are all the same species, but the trees up in the valley face more selective pressure when it comes to cold tolerance. For ages this situation is stable, until the climate on the plain shifts and becomes colder. When this happens, the trees in the valley now have an advantage, and their cold-tolerant genes will proliferate throughout the plain and eventually dominate as the older trees die out.

In the present day, there are people who live on the fringes. People in war-torn areas, people in xeric environments, people surviving in the cold, people who face population pressures and have to adapt to increased competition. All of these populations have traits which are selected for, both on the individual level, and on the societal level (social behavioral memes which make survival possible, like favoring suspicion over hospitality, or the reinforcing of tribal mentalities in war-torn areas. Societal trends which favor fierce competition and which control reproduction in overpopulated areas). In a large shift in climate or political situation, these 'fringes' will move into the center currently occupied by 'civilized' societies, if those civilized societies cannot cope with the changes which occur.

I don't know a lot about Eugenics but if it helps people already alive modify their genetic structure, that seems pretty useful. Natural selections doesn't help individuals who have "undesirable traits." Natural selections just means their lineage dies out and people with desirable traits live on.

People already alive can't modify their genetic structure. The human body contains trillions of cells, and for a living person to modify themselves genetically, they would have to change every copy of the genetic code perfectly. It is expensive and difficult to just alter one cell's genes (a zygote) in an incredibly controlled environment. Doing that trillions of times in a living human beings isn't even on the horizon, technologically speaking. The biggest problem is that humans aren't capable of determining which traits are 'undesirable' across the board. Only the environment is, and it does so by killing you at a disproportionate rates if you have them. The only form of selection which humans can apply is sexual selection.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 10:24:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:20:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

At the very least, a mild form of eugenics is required to combat dysgenic breeding patterns. At the moment, IQ is negatively correlated with fertility at about a rate of .20 even within ethnic groups, such that the genotypic component of IQ - which amounts to about 75 percent of the total -- declines by around 1.2 IQ points per generation. If that's allowed to go on forever humanity will just collapse under its own stupidity. Until we possess a greater understanding of human genetics, I don't think eugenics should be pursued by aggressively selecting for certain desired traits; there are too many ways it could go wrong. Rather, we should just ensure that the traits we want to see proliferate in the population have a positive correlation with fertility (which we have at least some control over) so that over time the mean distribution on those traits will move in a positive direction but the genetic variance will stay roughly the same. Of course, this isn't feasible right now. People have turned against eugenics to the point of hysteria, at least in the United States. Embryo selection could, in theory, serve the same function as eugenics, but it's not developed enough yet, and it's not even guaranteed that people would be open to it.

How do you explain this trend that smart people don't want babies as much as others?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 10:38:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 10:24:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:20:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

At the very least, a mild form of eugenics is required to combat dysgenic breeding patterns. At the moment, IQ is negatively correlated with fertility at about a rate of .20 even within ethnic groups, such that the genotypic component of IQ - which amounts to about 75 percent of the total -- declines by around 1.2 IQ points per generation. If that's allowed to go on forever humanity will just collapse under its own stupidity. Until we possess a greater understanding of human genetics, I don't think eugenics should be pursued by aggressively selecting for certain desired traits; there are too many ways it could go wrong. Rather, we should just ensure that the traits we want to see proliferate in the population have a positive correlation with fertility (which we have at least some control over) so that over time the mean distribution on those traits will move in a positive direction but the genetic variance will stay roughly the same. Of course, this isn't feasible right now. People have turned against eugenics to the point of hysteria, at least in the United States. Embryo selection could, in theory, serve the same function as eugenics, but it's not developed enough yet, and it's not even guaranteed that people would be open to it.

How do you explain this trend that smart people don't want babies as much as others?

Fewer accidental pregnancies and preoccupying themselves with career and school are probably the two main reasons that intelligent people have fewer children on average. This pattern is probably quite recent. It used to be the case that the wealthy had more surviving children than the poor, but this is totally reversed now.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 11:39:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 10:38:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2016 10:24:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/18/2016 6:20:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

At the very least, a mild form of eugenics is required to combat dysgenic breeding patterns. At the moment, IQ is negatively correlated with fertility at about a rate of .20 even within ethnic groups, such that the genotypic component of IQ - which amounts to about 75 percent of the total -- declines by around 1.2 IQ points per generation. If that's allowed to go on forever humanity will just collapse under its own stupidity. Until we possess a greater understanding of human genetics, I don't think eugenics should be pursued by aggressively selecting for certain desired traits; there are too many ways it could go wrong. Rather, we should just ensure that the traits we want to see proliferate in the population have a positive correlation with fertility (which we have at least some control over) so that over time the mean distribution on those traits will move in a positive direction but the genetic variance will stay roughly the same. Of course, this isn't feasible right now. People have turned against eugenics to the point of hysteria, at least in the United States. Embryo selection could, in theory, serve the same function as eugenics, but it's not developed enough yet, and it's not even guaranteed that people would be open to it.

How do you explain this trend that smart people don't want babies as much as others?

Fewer accidental pregnancies and preoccupying themselves with career and school are probably the two main reasons that intelligent people have fewer children on average. This pattern is probably quite recent. It used to be the case that the wealthy had more surviving children than the poor, but this is totally reversed now.

So Marx was right! Capitalism will be the death of us all!
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 2:08:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 6:20:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:02:00 AM, someloser wrote:
eugenics.

thots

At the very least, a mild form of eugenics is required to combat dysgenic breeding patterns. At the moment, IQ is negatively correlated with fertility at about a rate of .20 even within ethnic groups, such that the genotypic component of IQ - which amounts to about 75 percent of the total -- declines by around 1.2 IQ points per generation. If that's allowed to go on forever humanity will just collapse under its own stupidity. Until we possess a greater understanding of human genetics, I don't think eugenics should be pursued by aggressively selecting for certain desired traits; there are too many ways it could go wrong. Rather, we should just ensure that the traits we want to see proliferate in the population have a positive correlation with fertility (which we have at least some control over) so that over time the mean distribution on those traits will move in a positive direction but the genetic variance will stay roughly the same. Of course, this isn't feasible right now. People have turned against eugenics to the point of hysteria, at least in the United States. Embryo selection could, in theory, serve the same function as eugenics, but it's not developed enough yet, and it's not even guaranteed that people would be open to it.

I agree, although I think the way in which this can be achieved is through a deletion of government assistance programs and removal of any safety net which may help those who make poor decisions, as well as refusing to fund the importation of high fertility rate immigrants into low fertility rate nations.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.