News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Eugenics  (Read 1923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Abraxas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1145
  • You do not speak for the rest...
Eugenics
« on: September 12, 2006, 04:34:56 PM »
I have just heard about this recently as a possible solution to the poverty and despair in Africa. I admit, some of it is titillating... but a lot of it sounds like people with a superiority complex.

Here is the site:
http://www.eugenics.net/

And here is the basis for this ideal:
Quote from: Eugenics.net
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."

I can't tell if this is global or pertains to a single country... but this essay was written by a Dutch person by the name, Marian Van Court in the The Occidental Quarterly.

I admit the site looks kinda hokey, but the essays are well written, if nothing else. Perhaps someone more adept in Genetics could confirm/deny some of the findings that this theory cites?

Anyway, I just want to see a global opinion on this matter and also whether it would work in Africa.

My assessment is that if we start trying to educate them we will see a huge loss of money... and if we start spending money on this theory we can't feed them quite the same way. A small scale experiment may be successful... but the I keep think of Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes. Anyone else agree?
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
Ambassador Kosh

The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
Ambassador G'Kar


Offline Kritik

  • Banned troll: My arrogance couldn't be matched!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3505
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2006, 04:53:21 PM »
Quote
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

That is currently assumed but not proven. There is definitely a correlational trends, but it could be just because they are raised in special conditions. Also some geniuses, I presume, do spawn geniuses due to different brain structure. But Einstein's son was mentally retarded.

Quote
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

Um... no. That's not true, our current society is not based on sum total/average intelligence, it is build upon a hierarchy where the smartest makes the decisions. Civilization advances, where intelligent people are. It is the few, unfortunately, that makes the decision for society.

Quote
3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

That's based on the second argument. But by itself, yes, the better the civilization, the better the people.

Quote
4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

Uh... No. While the statistics where it says that people who have college degrees on average have like a billion times less kids, it doesn't mean we are DE-evolving. That's just untrue. More kids means more chances for evolution. Nothing about our race de-evolving to a dumber life-form. That just doesn't make sense, IMO.

Quote
5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."

Again, this is based on the second argument.

Eugenics justify genocide, something I don't want.
I used to think that I knew everything,
but now I'm just banned.



Offline Full Metal Geneticist

  • Sir Quotesaplenty | No new bastardy suits.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6113
  • Country: 00
  • Defender of the Text Wall
    • FMG's Angry Rantings
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2006, 04:58:11 PM »
Its fairly bogus. The IQ is linked to your stimulus as a child in mordern IQ tests kids with high stimulus who are forced to work hard tend to do well. This is evident in Afro Americans, Indians and Chinese who just 100 years ago were listed as having sub white IQs. Africans and Afro americans given proper education can match the genius IQ, China and India are both famed for producing high IQ individuals to the extent of them being regarded as "geeky" nations.

IQ is linked to how much stimulus you have growing up. I.e if you spend all your time watching TV your mind does rot. Reading books, doing puzzles, music (Hey any kind... Not classical in particular) and generally playing with interactive toys more than "repetitive" toys. Causes this. And certain teachings do this. For instance the average traditional australian aborigine kid scores lower than normal on a IQ test. Not because of poor teaching. Problem solving ability and spatial arrangement is'nt a valid problem in their teaching. However memorywise the kid would wipe the floor in the idea of spatial awarness and order rememberence.

They are right in one theory which is that The Higher the Civilisation the Better off the Population. While this is true they do have a valid point in population control. Everyone must control their population as they are putting a strain on resources. The world can support us in this current capacity. But it can't indefinitely better to start going to a more sane number of individuals before this. However I advocate birth control being cheap/free and voluntary options for vasectomies not Eugenics.

Eugenics does'nt work this way. We live in a society using Laissez Faire Eugenics. I.e people are told what they have and they make the choice. For instance two people are carriers of CF and told they could pass on the gene. They can opt to adopt a baby or use IVF with DNA sampling to prevent a CF possible child from occuring. What they are adopting is old school eugenics which was proven to be stupid.

Look most of these essays are written by rich ass people who have never even seen the idea of implementing such a system. What can be done is provide free and cheap birth control and recieve support from a certain religious organisation to utilise condoms. That would stop the population rise and allow the community to focus on betterment of life rather than stop gap measures on burgeoning population.

The thing is who do they mention are "less intelligent"? Cause their knowledge of genetics is frightfully flawed for the following reason. What is the average lifespan of a Pure Bred Great Dane? The reason for that is the same reason why Eugenics is a totally crap idea. If Hitler attempted his master race idea without his killing and war a lot of germany would be inbred and very quickly a race of genetic "retards" as the bad genes show themselves in the population.

Einstien was believed to have been mentally retarded. Normally we have a size difference between brain lobes, birth defects causing autism and aspergers cause similar lobe sizes which Einstein's autopsy confirmed. Mental retardation is linked to a variety of disorders and until we know what disease Einstein's son had you can't say. After all stroke cause mental retardation as well as down's syndrome but the retardation is different.



It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the Enlightenment and the scientific method. We risk as a society slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse. I would compare it to witchcraft but honestly that's insulting to witches.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2006, 05:57:53 PM »
I'm going to regret this but, statistically FMG, you're wrong.

Statistically there's proof of this. Adopted kids tend not to do as well as natural children born to the same household. This is because those who put children up for adoption are generally poor, often albeit not always as a result of low intelligence, low school attainment and therefore low income. Those who adopt children tend to be more affluent, partially at least through intelligence. Consistently, studies have shown that the intelligence of your children is affected not by all the things we think they are, like stimulation of the brain, but by your origin. Intelligence later in life is what depends on your upbringing, as said adopted kids tend to do less well in school but end up equally affluent as their adopted siblings through trying harder later on in life. In your youth however, IQ has a strong genetic link. Read Freakonomics for the statistical details on this.

I'm torn here. On the one hand, the eugenics argument is in many ways compelling. It's linked to the idea behind the various coming of age rituals tribes throughout time and space have had in operation to prove that members of the tribe are worthy of adulthood. The removal of these rituals from the majority of social groups has had a bizarre effect on human genetics in general as well as sociology. However, eugenics takes a basic fact and then runs way too far with it. I think evolutionarily speaking we need to create tighter controls on who has kids if we're to survive as a species since, for now, technology isn't enough to outweigh the problems defective genes have. However, I think purges and so on are a counter-productive strategy to complete this goal.
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Mr.Peanut (Turtleproof)

  • Ride Like Lightning, Crash Like Thunder | Infinity Circuit | Pork Sword of Mod-Justice | Took the basket, nuts and lol | Good grief, ye hennie pennies
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13225
  • Country: 00
  • Turtleposting At The Speed Of SHift
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Sigmarines, Chaos, Demons
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2006, 11:57:19 PM »
I think genetic engineering is the only way for our species to continue its existence as perpetually advancing in at least one region or another.  I think it's callous to say that genetics is the cause for poverty in Africa.  Actually, it is the meddling of more "advanced" civilizations in Africa that is the root cause of the current situation.

Remember well that nearly all of Africa was populated by thriving civilizations.  That a civilization is not technologically advanced is not an indicator of poverty and desolation.  Quite the contrary, tribal civilizations have fewer terminal diseases and- unlike "modern" society- are sustainable.  They are the civilizations that have thrived in the same region for thousands of years without decimating the countryside.  There are many, many downsides to a tribal society, but it is in most cases a stable and healthy existence. 

It is only after the culture, farming/hunting techniques, and entire society of African tribes was wiped-out by colonization, slavery, and social engineering that the purgatory of Mickey Mouse t-shirts in AIDS ravaged slums has come about.  In the worst cases, these places are truly hell on earth: life is constant suffering and dying at an early age yet through some ghastly joke of existence these hellholes manage to have positive population growth. 

The people living in these slums lost their ancestral techniques for living many many generations ago, and now make a "living" by cobbling together scraps of technology and money to mimic the life of a city dweller.  People such as the Masai are extremely fortunate to have preserved their traditional ways.

I embrace the idea of improving the gene pool through reasonable filtering or repair, though.  The most mentally and physically fit of this planet are being killed off by war or marginalized by a consumer culture that favors people that are more like lemmings.  It would be so nice to have a magic nanite machine like in Deus Ex: Invisible War, where all people gained equal ability through nanite infusion that allowed them to function to the best of their genetic heritage rather than the worst. 

I think that caution is very important, but the idea that genetic engineering will lead to armies of super Hitlers is both exaggerated and infeasible.
You are
What you do
When it counts
     -The Masao
"Getting what you want can be dangerous.

Offline Kritik

  • Banned troll: My arrogance couldn't be matched!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3505
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2006, 12:00:50 AM »
I think the main problem is that we don't fully understand the implication for doing this. I think the best thing is to let Evolution do its thing. When we do one thing with a gene, we can have over thousands, if not millions, of unexpected results. One gene is tied with another, which interacts differently in different stages, which may advance or detract from a principle. The ramifications are just problematic. To say the least.
I used to think that I knew everything,
but now I'm just banned.



Offline Mr.Peanut (Turtleproof)

  • Ride Like Lightning, Crash Like Thunder | Infinity Circuit | Pork Sword of Mod-Justice | Took the basket, nuts and lol | Good grief, ye hennie pennies
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13225
  • Country: 00
  • Turtleposting At The Speed Of SHift
  • Armies: Eldar, Dark Eldar, Sigmarines, Chaos, Demons
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2006, 12:09:39 AM »
That is true.  There are many things which we have not even the slightest theoretical concept of yet, and that could have dire results.  Last I checked, we still don't know why cloned animals are prone to suddenly die sometimes (it seems to have been fixed, as cloned cattle and pets are becoming available, but I haven't heard the explanation for it yet).   I think that limiting genetic engineering to culling the worst traits from the gene pool would be wonderful.  Would-be parents would not be allowed to design their child, merely delete genes for cancer, diabetes, blindness, conjoined twinning, epillepsy, and so on.
You are
What you do
When it counts
     -The Masao
"Getting what you want can be dangerous.

Offline Full Metal Geneticist

  • Sir Quotesaplenty | No new bastardy suits.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6113
  • Country: 00
  • Defender of the Text Wall
    • FMG's Angry Rantings
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2006, 07:08:35 AM »
Not precisely Kritik. You can easily add genes to the junk DNA sections of us. Indeed the Junk DNA is actually a defence mechanism towards viruses and so on by creating a lower chance that any virus capable of integrating itself in our genes does'nt do so mid gene by chance.

Genetic Engineering despite the precise name is extremely hit and miss. You don't decide where the gene is. Its easy in things like bacteria, fungi and plants. Not so in animals. A genetically modified "blank" lab rat costs a whopping 50 pounds. A store bought Rat is a fiver. So 10 times the cost to genetically alter something. The advantage is once set up the animal pays for itself in value as it takes hundreds if not thousands of attempts to create the modification you want.

Want to try that with humans? Its not so easy. And genetic modification and evolution both work on gene diversity not reducing it via genetic modification. Gene modification is there only as an option to eliminate genetic disorders, not for whimsy.

I'm going to regret this but, statistically FMG, you're wrong.

Statistically there's proof of this. Adopted kids tend not to do as well as natural children born to the same household. This is because those who put children up for adoption are generally poor, often albeit not always as a result of low intelligence, low school attainment and therefore low income. Those who adopt children tend to be more affluent, partially at least through intelligence. Consistently, studies have shown that the intelligence of your children is affected not by all the things we think they are, like stimulation of the brain, but by your origin. Intelligence later in life is what depends on your upbringing, as said adopted kids tend to do less well in school but end up equally affluent as their adopted siblings through trying harder later on in life. In your youth however, IQ has a strong genetic link. Read Freakonomics for the statistical details on this.

I'm torn here. On the one hand, the eugenics argument is in many ways compelling. It's linked to the idea behind the various coming of age rituals tribes throughout time and space have had in operation to prove that members of the tribe are worthy of adulthood. The removal of these rituals from the majority of social groups has had a bizarre effect on human genetics in general as well as sociology. However, eugenics takes a basic fact and then runs way too far with it. I think evolutionarily speaking we need to create tighter controls on who has kids if we're to survive as a species since, for now, technology isn't enough to outweigh the problems defective genes have. However, I think purges and so on are a counter-productive strategy to complete this goal.

And the end difference is that it all flattens out. Rich people are'nt necessarily intelligent. And poor people who give kids up for adoption are'nt necessarily dumb. There is also the age of adoption to consider. Mental development is based on mom. The amount she plays with you and so on. When you are born you imprint your mom on your memory and responses, you won't even notice others and indeed cry to everyone else but people who look like mummy. Add to that breast feeding and its bonding issue and you see why Kids who are "adopted" like this are slightly flawed as they are traumatised. Older adoptions affect kids a lot more mentally as they are constantly shifted around and then they lack discipline as both they and their adoptive parents who are trying to earn their love let rules slide "a bit" to encouirage the kids. Its assuming only a genetic and not a behavioural factor. There are plenty of psychological problems with the research considering the trauma on the child's part of the adoption. And the lack of mum's milk in babies which keeps them safe from diseases in their first few years. Even if its likely the biggest difference would be in a few points of IQ. Which As stated is a flawed measurement of intelligence. IQ has a strong monetary link in many countries due to the amount of stimulation a kid is able to be subject to. Poor people can't afford piano, sport, swimming, drama and so on. Their Kids minds rot due to poor food and TV more so than the richer kids parents who often send them to learn things. Another flaw is child IQ. Many kids don't understand questions. Or don't care about them. Making testing extremely difficult. 

And IQ is such a daft measure since there are plenty of low IQ people who earn so much money that High IQ people can't. And there are plenty of Low IQ people in Jobs where you would expect high IQs. IQ is not a measure of "fitness" its the ability to work well. We are'nt in a Intelligence based environment we are in a environment thats based on "what works". For instance I won't hire you if you have an IQ of 140+ when I have a more experienced person with an IQ of 100 sitting there. Its what works. For all our lives its our social skills, our ability to utilise our IQ in our work (I have outscored plenty of people with higher IQs and have been outscored by plenty of people with Lower IQs at school) the ability to work hard. IQ is none of those things. Its a very wishy washy thing.





It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the Enlightenment and the scientific method. We risk as a society slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse. I would compare it to witchcraft but honestly that's insulting to witches.

Offline Locarno

  • Ork Boy
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6488
  • Country: 00
  • Could I interest you in a small bribe?
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2006, 07:25:29 AM »
Quote
You can easily add genes to the junk DNA sections of us.

I'm sorry. I really, really hate the phrase 'junk DNA' because everyone assumes it means "this bit isn't for anything". 

It doesn't.

It means "we don't have a bloody clue what this bit does"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_dna
(I admit that 'nothing' is still a possibility for any given bit of DNA, but we don't know)

Call me paranoid, but I do not wish to attempt to modify or 'improve' a potentially critical system when I don't know how it works in the first place. I leave that to the staff of PC world....




Which, fundamentally, is why I think eugenics is a bad idea. We do not know how genetics functions - not on a deep enough level to manipulate it with a will.

Intelligence is a hard-enough to measure subject anyway, but as noted above, all evidence suggests that a genetic connection is tenuous at best. Certainly innate intelligence is secondary to eductation and upbringing. If you train someone from age 6-7 they will be a decent surgeon.

Unless they suffer from involuntary muscular spasms, I don't care where you got them from. They may not be superb but they will be good enough to qualify.

More to the point, voluntarily removing genetic traits from the gene pool forcibly (i.e. not via the evolutionary process) involves removing ALL traits attached to such a genetic pool. That's disease immunity, genetic diversity providing protection from recessive traits, and several things we haven't found yet.




Improving access to birth control is a good idea; not for genetic reasons but because if you improve healthcare to a poor country where people traditionally have large families (because they traditionally have shorter lifespans, more labour intensive incomes and lousy mortality rates), you get a catastrophic population growth rate.
Look at China's urbanisation rate and you'll see what I mean.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/china_modern/html/2.stm

The massive increase of population amongst poorer families (not any less intelligent) is a far more real threat to the "misery quotient."

« Last Edit: September 14, 2006, 08:13:59 AM by locarno24 »
Stories to read....
Songs of Earth
The Will to Survive Series

Tervigon Army List:
Games Played: 35
Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2685

Offline Full Metal Geneticist

  • Sir Quotesaplenty | No new bastardy suits.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6113
  • Country: 00
  • Defender of the Text Wall
    • FMG's Angry Rantings
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2006, 08:01:08 AM »
*bangs head against wall*

Its role has been stated...

"Junk" DNA has three roles. Its called Junk cause it does'nt code for anything.

1. It acts as a protective barrier to viral genome insertion and transposon infection. I.e the more DNA you have the less likely it is a vital gene is going to get knocked out when the virus/transposon inserts itself.

2. It acts as telomeres. DNA does'nt copy itself perfectly and indeed little bits of the ends of DNA are lost during copying. The telomeres are made from junk DNA and get smaller and smaller as we age. The main problem with aging is that as we carry on the telomers wear out and we start losing coding areas of genes.

3. Reduces the chance of mutation occuring to the coding section and helps control gene expression via the use of intron/exon segmenting and again bulking out the DNA to provide abalative protection.

The term Junk is what is used since you can much about with it. Whether it be ACCGTCATC or AGCACTCAT does'nt matter as it does'nt code. In order to code DNA you need a AUG (DNA: TAC) codon to initiate RNA attachment and transcription. Bits which don't possess the AUG and all the associated sections to initiate DNA transcription are classed as junk since their coding does'nt matter.

It does have purpose. The problem is its purpose is really mundane.


It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the Enlightenment and the scientific method. We risk as a society slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse. I would compare it to witchcraft but honestly that's insulting to witches.

Offline chaos0xomega

  • Hilary Clinton FTW!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4283
  • Fabricator-General of being banned.
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2006, 09:58:34 PM »
I am curious why you called this thread Eugenics. Anyone unfamiliar with the term will think that it calls for teh genocide of those with small IQ's. Eugenics is a potentiall good ting if used properly(and I ain't talking about this).

ANYWAY, I disagree with the theory that intelligence is hereditary. If it was, then how could we do what we are doing today? If it's hereditary, surely we would be little more intelligent than a Neanderthal?
BANNED!
This user has been banned for regular breaches of Forum rules.

Offline Lomendil

  • Mad Prophet of Commorragh
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10734
  • Country: 00
  • If it's comprehensible, it's obselete
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2006, 10:08:51 PM »
I probably read too much cyberpunk, but here's my view: it won't be an issue for much longer, since within 150 years we'll all get nice souped-up cybernetic/biotech brain enhancements. A eugenics selective breeding program would take longer than that to show any effects.

Offline Full Metal Geneticist

  • Sir Quotesaplenty | No new bastardy suits.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6113
  • Country: 00
  • Defender of the Text Wall
    • FMG's Angry Rantings
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2006, 10:28:45 PM »
I am curious why you called this thread Eugenics. Anyone unfamiliar with the term will think that it calls for teh genocide of those with small IQ's. Eugenics is a potentiall good ting if used properly(and I ain't talking about this).

ANYWAY, I disagree with the theory that intelligence is hereditary. If it was, then how could we do what we are doing today? If it's hereditary, surely we would be little more intelligent than a Neanderthal?

Cause it is eugenics? The definition of eugenics is the engineering of sex to eliminate inferior traits. The problem is the definition of Inferior. 100 years ago carrying one copy of the CF gene may have been beneficial. Even now in central africa carrying one copy of the Sickle Cell Anaemia gene is beneficial even if the double gene is lethal.

The IQ of a population recedes to the mean. I.e its a good chance if you have high IQ your kids will be normal. IQ does'nt run like that and indeed its a very difficult term to quantify intelligence. You may not be able to communicate with a farmer about the beauty of Rodin but in terms of farming he will know more and be better suited for it. There are thousands of businessmen in India who earn a extremely large salary but are illiterate. They would'nt score on the IQ test even. That is the problem. The IQ test relies on a lot of things to be any fair. And under different tests you score different amounts.

And we did'nt evolve from Neandrathal, Neandrathal man is believed to be an evolutionary dead end since he diverged from an earlier branch into him and Cro Magnon man who has generally occupied the same time period during the ice age but south in the more temperate climes while Neandrathal man played the ice game as he had access to big game. And they were pretty intelligent. Its difficult to quantify intelligence since they don't exist anymore but they were intelligent enough to kill a hella lot of large game animals such as mammoth.

Eugenics breeding programs are flawed flawed and flawed. Eugenics cannot create a utopia as hitler envisioned it. It can however provide people with a choice. if you and your lady friend carried a single CF gene (if you had two each then its not an issue since more than likely you will pass away before you have kids) you can choose not to have sex and either use sperm and egg sampling or adoption to have a kid thats not CF and does'nt carry CF. It can eliminate dangerous genes by volunteers. No parent wants their kid to suffer horrible disease so most pick the nay we will adopt option.


It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the Enlightenment and the scientific method. We risk as a society slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse. I would compare it to witchcraft but honestly that's insulting to witches.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2006, 05:28:47 AM »
ANYWAY, I disagree with the theory that intelligence is hereditary. If it was, then how could we do what we are doing today? If it's hereditary, surely we would be little more intelligent than a Neanderthal?
Disagree with whatever the hell you like, but there is factual data to support this. I don't know if it's available on the internet, but read the book Freakonomics by Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner to find out about it.
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline chaos0xomega

  • Hilary Clinton FTW!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4283
  • Fabricator-General of being banned.
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2006, 10:47:10 AM »
I did read freakenomics. Good book. But doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
BANNED!
This user has been banned for regular breaches of Forum rules.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2006, 10:52:30 AM »
You want to disagree with mathematical statistics? Go for it sunshine...
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Full Metal Geneticist

  • Sir Quotesaplenty | No new bastardy suits.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6113
  • Country: 00
  • Defender of the Text Wall
    • FMG's Angry Rantings
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #16 on: September 16, 2006, 11:19:26 AM »
Its due to regression to mean. Intelligent parents will have kids with a lower IQ. But conversely, low IQ parents will have a high IQ kid with a regression to mean. The few freaks are turned up with higher/lower IQs maintaining the spread. There is a link but the IQ actually decreases.

The actual spike for mean IQs remain the same with a high central peak and steep sides with the higher ends of IQs with a handful of people in a population. There is no shift in the average despite all that indicating no net movement of IQ.


It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the Enlightenment and the scientific method. We risk as a society slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse. I would compare it to witchcraft but honestly that's insulting to witches.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #17 on: September 16, 2006, 01:03:56 PM »
Its due to regression to mean. Intelligent parents will have kids with a lower IQ. But conversely, low IQ parents will have a high IQ kid with a regression to mean. The few freaks are turned up with higher/lower IQs maintaining the spread. There is a link but the IQ actually decreases.

Care to explain that comment? Do you have a link or something to provide me with evidence that high IQ parents have low IQ kids?
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Full Metal Geneticist

  • Sir Quotesaplenty | No new bastardy suits.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6113
  • Country: 00
  • Defender of the Text Wall
    • FMG's Angry Rantings
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2006, 01:23:33 PM »
It means that If your IQ is say 140 and your spouses is 140, your child's IQ will be above average but lower than yours due to chance. However due to random assortment and a variety of controls on IQ if it were to be a genetic component produces a method where a person with a IQ of 100 can still produce kids whose IQ is around 120 (As an example)

Its not a statistical calculation owing to the kind of inheritance of IQ is unknown as it behaves unlike other genes indicating multiple gene and environmental influence.

Read the Wikipedia article on IQ it mentions the drop in IQ of kids from high IQ parents.


It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the Enlightenment and the scientific method. We risk as a society slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse. I would compare it to witchcraft but honestly that's insulting to witches.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Eugenics
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2006, 01:26:17 PM »
Oh I get it now. Sorry, I thought you were saying smart parents have stupid kids, when in fact you were saying smart parents have less smart kids. Doit.
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

 


Powered by EzPortal