SurfSciGuy

Okay lets revisit this to save on argument. The website is deeply worrying. It advocates eugenics as a "secular religion" (guy needs to read more political theory). While there are grains of truth in here (liberally borrowed from other authors and presented in a distorted montage), the site is typical of a religion in that it does not provide balanced debate. As far as I am aware links between IQ and genes are erroneous - the website is lying. It is not in the interests of anyone to pursue eugenics. The best thing you can do for children is to be a good parent and provide an environment in which they can grow intellectually and socially. This will give your child a better start than any amount of "clever" genes. Maybe somethings can only be extreme - this depends on your point of view. Is this mild? The attempt at complete social engineering of a society by genetic selection is mild? I don't think so. Why is selecting for "intelligence" or specifically IQ, which is shown to be culturally and gender-biased, any better than selecting for blonde hair and blue eyes? There is no more argument for saying boosting the intelligence of the entire society will decrease social problems than making them all have the same hair colour. You are also making the mistake in equating intelligence with educational privilege (i.e. if you are clever you have been to college); natural intelligence maybe due to genetic factors alone, but educational privilege is a purely social factor. It is having a degree from college that means you will be more likely to "succeed" in society, not possessing the intelligence to obtain a degree. What you advocate is just raising the bar for everyone - this will make no difference. The law-abiding citizens would get smarter and the criminals would get smarter. Intelligence and social dysfunction are not inversly proportional. You also assume that social problems are cause by genetics alone - this is a flawed assumption. There you have it.

I get it from a small cylinder in the lab.

Nope. If there are desirable traits there must be undesirable (or at least less desirable traits). for instance if you are selecting for a certain gene type for intelligence, all other gene types at that point in the chromosome will be disfavoured - it has to be that way two genes can't occupy the same space. For instance if you select for a particular eye colour the genes that regulate that occur at the same point for everyone but they code for different eye colours. Selecting one means that you will deselect the other two. In a way we already do practice "social forethought" although I prefer to call it dating. Of course for eugenics to work you need a set of rules or guidelines to what makes a good couple - enter the state. The word Orwellian is used by modern political theorists to describe a over-controlling "big brother" type state - not neccessarily directly refering to the contents of Orwell's novels (much like the word Wagnerian does not neccessary refer exclusively to the works of Richard Wagner). However it does really remind me more of Yevgenny Zamatin now I come to think of it. Existing scenarios, I suppose you mean things like over-population in China - "eugenic"-style programmes there have reduced the number of females in China massively - maybe you think this is a good thing, I don't. I just don't agree with you when you say there are any existing scenarios that call for eugenics - I can think of plenty that call for social education and humanitarian aid. Eugenics does not work perfectly well in any of the agricultural or pet breeding uses you have listed. There are myriad examples of genetic lines being "weak" and suffering from a host of problems directly caused by the eugenic selection process - of course if a genetic line doesn't "work" in these examples it just dies out because it is commercially unviable - would it be the same for humans? We have countless examples of the damage that can be caused by unnatural (or accelerated) gene selection both in our own species (look at the royal families of europe in the last two centuries) or in others (dogs are a great example). Did I say it was not worth discussing? What are we doing now? Read the bios of Charles Davenport and his colleagues, for example. Good job I didn't make that argument then. I was merely using an extreme example to illustrate a point. Unfortunately you seem to have extrapolated an "argument" from that , which you have accused me of presenting and launch a rebuttal against this arguement. I did not, however, make the argument, so why should I defend it? The fact is that Wolfgang's idea of "mild" eugenics is just as distasteful as the Aryan ideaology, I don't see why it is better to select for "intellegence" and to discourage the "welfare class" from breeding as it is to select for Aryan features and to discourage non-Aryan's from breeding. I know you didn't I was asking you question to see what you think (surely the point of discussion?). I am perfectly aware of what wolfgang was asking, I don't need you to explain it to me. You may disagree with the way I have chosen to address the issues, which is fine, but I don't need correction from someone who is no more an expert than I. Why are we way off topic? Surely we are discussing the first post - couldn't be more on topic if we tried. So a cultural change in America won't affect the rest of the world? Read some politics and look at the last 100 years of history. The impact would be no different from other population-mediated changes, however I believe it would be negative. There must be some enforcement at some level to make eugenics work - this is because it is essentially forcing some of the population to do something against their will. The complete and mandatory system is the one you have been discussing - once again putting words into my mouth. Funny how the bit of your argument I needed clarification on suddenly becomes the crux? Maybe I didn't understand what you meant because you didn't explain it properly the first time.

I was actually entering the discussion prompted by the first post, which I think is perfectly justified It must be decreased, by selecting certain genetic traits you are excluding others. Social forethought? What exactly is that? Sounds like the state telling you who to shack up with to me - bit orwellian. I don't really know what you mean by previous shifts in mate selection. The implementation of eugenics is flawed for the reasons I have stated above - ergo I do not believe there is a right situation/place/time for eugenics. Justification fo eugenics stems from the fact that a better society will result from genetic selection - there is no proof for this. No, not really. Well he does indicate that people from the welfare classes are undesirable and that he believes that it is because they lack intellegence. He believes that we should select for intelligence and that intelligent people do not go on welfare, which is wrong, but it is a genetic ideal. So you are saying it's okay to experiment on a bit of our species? The altering american society will not have an impact on our species as a whole for example? Seems to me you are as guilty as me of arguing against points that weren't actually made - I don't recall talking about "forced breeding programs" at any point in my posts, nor ethnic cleansing, sterilisation or other nasty things that you mentioned. Attacking my argument on points of construction by putting words in my mouth is not very good. I thought for a moment you were actually good at this.

That doesn't make it legal. It is easy to produce TNT and LSD too.

The orignal post makes tacit assumption that brighter people are not of the welfare class and that the welfare class is full of stupid people and they are in that class because they are stupid. What is the point of responding to the post if it so fundamentally flawed? And as for reducing the gene pool, this will make our species more vulnerable - with less genetic resources we have less contingency against pathogenic attack it's a question of stats. In the end we do not know what genes may be useful against pathogens (for example sickle cell anaemia is a fatal condition in it's double gene form, however the hybrid is resistant to malaria and only suffers mild symtoms, if you map sickle cell and malaria you will find that occurance of both is closely related - nature is selecting sickle cell for it's beneficial effects). Eugenics is flawed because every justification is based on incorrect assumptions, why? Because the proposers of Eugenics are from certain social classes and believe that lower social classes are created through genetic flaws when there has never been proof of this. Let us make an important distinction here, eugenics is NOT gene therapy (the treatment of a diseased individual by gene techonogies). Eugenics is the improvment of a species by genetic selection. It's very definition is it's failure, what is improvement? Who gauges it? What qualifies as success? Is intelligence more important than practical ability, is it more important than fertility? Where is the evidence that shows the clever people give birth to clever kids??? Eugenics completely ignores environmental factors - it's just an attempt at a quick fix solution to our problems that won't work.

Sorry, my bad! Getting Archaeopteryx and Archaeoraptor confused (oops!) Here's the archaeoraptor stuff if you're interested: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-321.htm

I don't you can create successful people, they have to have the right environment to grow in as well. That aside, we must make sure that genetic engineering for eugenic purposes is not available on the market or we will end up with a Gatica scenario, with a genetic underclass. Companies would be quick to employ people with "good" genes, thus denying some people opportunities, which would be determental for us as a species (i.e. the greatest scientist known to man might be denied work at the top institutions due to the fact that they have a defect gene coding for the heart for instance). The fact is that genes code for possibilities, our environment actually makes us who we are.

Just thought I'd like to point out that archaeopteryx is a fraud (or at least the original fossil that was named archaeopteryx). It was faked from impressions of lizard skeletons and bird feathers made in a slip mixture and sandwiched between two plates of rock. When the slip dried it formed an invisible seal (this explains why the fossil was so flat, a fact which has puzzled many paleantologists for a long time). However this is mute because fossil records have a complete reptile-bird lineage now anyway.

Okay, simple. Society could not act in the best interests of society as it would be shutting down contingency. No-one knows what will affect our species in the future and which genetic make-up would be most suited to survive these future challenges. We may think creating a set of obermench-style blonde blue-eyed genii will help us now, but in the long term it will make our species more vulerable to attack by pathogens. The tallest wheatsheaves get knocked down by the wind.

What is not true? What you consider to be liberal bullshit mght be considered by other to be a perfectly valid viewpoint - why should women not have certain rights over their bodies? It is easy for men to discuss this issue with impunity because they will never get pregnant and sadly men form the majority of the political class (well at least in my country anyway). I agree that, whilst an abortion should be carried out as soon as possible, the law has to make sure that it takes into account all aspects of the issue (which is why it is so difficult to create a generic law). A woman may not discover she is pregnant until later on (this does actually happen). A women may suffer from illnesses both mental and physical during pregnancy. A woman many suffer injury at any time during the pregnancy. A woman that does not want a child will resent that child if she is forced to have it - post-natal depression is serious and the child could be at great risk and may suffer psychological and physical trauma. I'm guessing that your a bloke? I hope I'm right or I've just found the world's first chauvanist woman. For a start it takes two people to make a child. Why should the woman be the one to protect against fertilization? Surely it is equally the man's responsibility. It is also not just the woman's job to nuture the child - you seem to have a bit of a victorian attitude there. Woman have abortions for lots of reasons, one is the failure of contraception (it's not 100% effective). Also, a woman can only have one or possibly two abortions without the risk of serious complications being high - there is always the risk of complications and secondary infections. In order to get an abortion in most civilised countries you have to go through medical exams and the procedure itself is quite a harrowing one apparently. Abortion is not an easy choice and it's not one that can be repeated everytime a woman falls pregnant - it is a last resort.

No, society can act on what it thinks (in the majority) is best - this is not absolute. Whilst mistakes can be tolerated at a certain level, I don't think that eugenic transformation of the gene pool based on a set of criteria that could be flawed is an ethically sound prinicipal. Also, sadly, our democracies are flawed, especially in the states, where you effectively elect a monarch and a feudal hierarchy and they tell you what to do. The unfettered executive authority of the President of the United States is quite astounding. But I digress...

Yep. Sadly the very thing we need for life actually kills us - mmm philosophical...

From a biological point of view eugenics goes against the point of hybrid vigour, which advocates a wide gene pool is the way a species survives. From an ethical view point (as others have said before) who can say what is "best" in our society. Just because someone isn't considered intellegent based upon our flawed system of judgement does not mean they aren't gifted at something - I have yet to meet a person that does not have a talent at something.

And as far as I am away you won't be able to get either of them without an EUA (end user agreement).

The problem is, gas IS atmosphere as such. When we are talking at pressures of the ISM (interstellar medium) which are in the range of 10^-11 to 10^-13 mbar gases no longer behave in the same fashion as they do at atmosphere (i.e. they do not flow). This is because the molecules in the gas are often total independent due to the fact that their mean free path (the average distance between collisions) is huge as their are so few molecule per unit volume. The effect of gravity on individual molecules is small compared to their Kinetic energy (in Ultra High Vacuum Chambers gases are wizzing around at about the speed of sound) so they just bounce around inside the container. In space, however, there is no up or down, so despite the molecules in the ISM having low kinetic energies (T = a few K) they just move around in a random fashion - on the large scale this, however, is expansions as molecule that are head away from a high pressure region are less likely to experience a collision than those heading towards it. As there are few collisions and the gases are very cold - expansion occurs very slowly in space.

The best thing they've come up with is putting beer in opaque packaging (probably for the best as we don't need even more additives in our monkey juice thankyouverymuch).

I think you have to take each individual case on its medical grounds. Sadly for the anti-abortion lobby, they fail to realise that there is not "another" side to this debate as can be seen be the way people on this thread have drawn the line in various places. If we do want to make generic laws (which is the want of our "civilised" societies) I think we should make abortion allowable until the foetus is externally viable (whenever that is), until that point I consider it part of the woman's body and should thus be under her control. Basically the rights of the unborn child and those of the mother must be carefully balanced as neither takes clear-cut precedence throughout pregnancy.

Well I would stand behind Bush, with a larger hammer. Bush is scary, Kerry is a no brain soft republican who the Demcrats are using to get back in power - he should get on well with 'President' Tony though.

Just reading this months chemistry world. Apparently some guys from Belgium (K Huvaere et al., Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2004 (DOI: 10.1039/b403666b) if you're interested) have found that a set of chemicals found in beer called isohumulones, which are important for beer foam stabilisation decompose under UV to 3-methylbut-2-ene-1-thiol which is a bit stinky and doesn't taste nice. Kind of explains why a drink so fast when it's sunny!

Once again biologists and physicists are stealing our space!

Yeah 3 years (I did an undergrad Masters for my sins though!), I'm at the end of my 1st year so it's where the fun begins. We still get classes too, but they're of the wishy washy "time managment' and "relating to your supervisor"- type stuff. I find it's easy to relate to your supervisor when your stuck in a synchrotron about 100 miles from him! PS do you think we should have a bit of a bigger representation on this board I mean Chemistry isn't exactly an "other science".

Personally I think what people find easy is a totally personal thing. I found physical chemistry easy when I was an undergrad and organic hard (hence when I was getting +90% in phys chem and about 60% in organic). Of course now I'm a researcher everything is difficult.