Eugenics

[Eugenics]

What do you think about Eugenics? I personally think it would drastically change the world for the better.

 

By Eugenics I mean sterilizing everyone with an IQ below 100, and forcibly aborting any fetus which will be born with a genetic deformity, retardation, etc.

 

Also encouraging geniuses to procreate by giving them tax breaks and benefits for each child they produce.

 

Can you imagine a world where geniuses are a dime a dozen?

Classrooms full of gifted children, no more government funds wasted on special ed classrooms, all this we can achieve.

 

We just have to set aside pointless emotions and see the bigger picture.

It might be difficult to accept forced sterilization at first, but the benefits are more than worth it.

 

I envision a city on the Moon, and colonies on Mars in our not so distant future, should we adopt the practice of Eugenics,

because it would drastically increase the amount of future scientists that will be born.

[iNow]

I think it's hateful and ignorant, even though those two words overlap tremendously.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What do you think about Eugenics? I personally think it would drastically change the world for the better.

 

By Eugenics I mean sterilizing everyone with an IQ below 100, and forcibly aborting any fetus which will be born with a genetic deformity, retardation, etc.

 

Also encouraging geniuses to procreate by giving them tax breaks and benefits for each child they produce.

Do you have substantial evidence that high IQ is heritable, and that high IQ corresponds to success in science, technology, business, etc.?

 

I'm not sure inherent high IQ is the only deficiency preventing our success.

[Eugenics]

I think it's hateful and ignorant, even though those two words overlap tremendously.

 

What exactly am I ignorant of?

 

I will tell you what I hate, I hate seeing stupid people constantly whining about their pathetic little problems, I want some real scientific advancement, and that will not happen until we cut off our loose ends. Billions of years of evolution and what do we have to show for it? Jersey shore and twitter.... Life is so much more than that, humans have stopped evolving, the only way we can continue our progression is through Eugenics.

[iNow]

the only way we can continue our progression is through Eugenics.

No, it's not.

[Eugenics]

Do you have substantial evidence that high IQ is heritable, and that high IQ corresponds to success in science, technology, business, etc.?

 

I'm not sure inherent high IQ is the only deficiency preventing our success.

 

I was under the assumption that there was already plenty of evidence correlating IQ with scientific achievement.

Tell me the last time you saw someone with 70 IQ who made a great scientific discovery.

 

No, it's not.

 

Then tell me your alternative.

[iNow]

Then tell me your alternative.

Education is one. Do I win a prize? Will you give me a cookie now?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I was under the assumption that there was already plenty of evidence correlating IQ with scientific achievement.

Tell me the last time you saw someone with 70 IQ who made a great scientific discovery.

I'd be interested in that evidence, if you can dig some of it up.

 

The point is not whether below-average people can make great scientific discoveries; it's whether increasing the current average will improve scientific discovery any.

 

Also: How many of our global problems can't be solved due to technological and scientific reasons, rather than political and monetary roadblocks?

[StringJunky]

 

By Eugenics I mean sterilizing everyone with an IQ below 100,...

 

So, shall we start with you then...?

 

A society requires a broad range of intelligence available to fullfill the all tasks required for it to function properly...it takes all sorts to make a world.

[Moontanman]

I can see humans genetically engineered to a particular environment, lets say a living planet was found with compatible DNA life but the atmospheric pressure was 100 times earth normal and group of humans decided to colonize it, i would hope the humans of that biological and technological level would be a bit smarter than sterilize everyone with an IQ of less than 100.

[Eugenics]

So, shall we start with you then...?

 

A society requires a broad range of intelligence available to fullfill the all tasks required for it to function properly...it takes all sorts to make a world.

 

 

Someone with an IQ of 150 can be a scientist or a janitor. Someone with an IQ of 75 Can be a janitor, but not a scientist. Understand where I am going with this?

[Appolinaria]

Certain negative attributes can be correlated with higher IQ, such as alcoholism.

 

We may need the perfect temperature.... Intelligent enough so that our environment isn't our enemy, but not too intelligent that we become our own enemy.. and destroy ourselves/the environment.

 

If we were so intelligent that we could see outside of our aquarium, would we continue to swim? But then what is the point of long term survival if it's not for greater intelligence?

[UltimateBioGeek]

By Eugenics I mean sterilizing everyone with an IQ below 100, and forcibly aborting any fetus which will be born with a genetic deformity, retardation, etc.

 

There's three major problems with this idea. First, you're implying desired intelligence is toward mathematics, spatial reasoning and logic, as they are the main areas tapped by IQ tests. This is ideal if you want to promote a society of mathematicians, physicists and logicians but it has no implication for other sciences. Second, suppose a society actually does what you suggest. In a society full of highly intelligent individuals, you'll still need people to perform non-intelligent menial tasks, such as drive trucks, collect household garbage, clean sewers, etc... . These intelligent future scientists will have to perform these non-intelligent duties to serve society but that's going against what you proposed because you envisioned a society full of scientists who can put their abilities to good work. In the end, would it not make sense to not sterilize non-intelligent individuals so they can perform these tasks allowing all the highly intelligent individuals to be free to put their abilities to work? However, that is inconsistent with the sterilization you're suggesting, which then begs the question, how do you decide which highly intelligent individual performs such menial tasks? Third, will "savants" be spared if their talent is useful for science but not tapped by IQ scores?

[Ophiolite]

Someone with an IQ of 150 can be a scientist or a janitor. Someone with an IQ of 75 Can be a janitor, but not a scientist. Understand where I am going with this?

During the Space Race a janitor at a NASA facility was asked what his job was. He replied, "I'm helping to put a man on the moon." We need more janitors than scientists.

 

You assess that the only meritorious characteristic of humans is their intelligence. Give me a choice between a caring, compassionate, enthusiastic individual with an IQ of 70, or a morose, self indulgent, patronising person with an IQ of 150 and I know who I'll be proppping up the bar with.

 

You wish to eliminate people with known genetic defects.

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

 

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

 

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

 

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

 

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

 

How good is your eyesight, eugenics? Do you have any tendency to dental caries? A trace of asthma in your family? Can you run a mile in less than 4 minutes 30 seconds? Things aren't looking so good for you my boy.

 

Finally, do you want to be the one to tell Stephen Hawkings, or shall I?

[StringJunky]

Proactively tampering with genetic characteristics in a species, through eugenics, to favour one over another could reduce its long-term survivability by reducing the diversity of progeny it can produce ie it's not possible to predict what characteristics maybe required for a species to survive some novel and adverse future circumstance.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Also, I suspect that nearly everyone is a carrier for some recessive genetic abnormality or another. There are, after all, so many of them...

[Arete]

humans have stopped evolving.

 

This statement is incredibly useful in determining that the enunicator of it has no idea.

 

Even if every single member of one generation contributed identical genetic information to the next (i.e. perfect neutral selection), which they don't - stochastic genetic drift would ensure that human populations will temporally diverge (i.e. evolve). Evolution does not "stop" and implying that it does conclusively suggests you have a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

What you're actually saying is that you've:

1) subjectively determined the characters which you've decided should be desirable in humans;

2) assumed them to be heritable and not environmentally induced;

3) decided based on your anecdotal experience that these traits are not currently being selected for;

4) proposed draconian methods of ensuring their selection.

 

Given your fundamental lack of understanding regarding the evolutionary process, the speculative nature of assumptions 1-3 and the ethical unacceptability of 4, the concept of eugenics you present and the subsequent actions you suggest are dismissible.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Arete

[Appolinaria]

Don't separate yourself too far from Snookie

[StringJunky]

Also, I suspect that nearly everyone is a carrier for some recessive genetic abnormality or another. There are, after all, so many of them...

 

That which is considered to be a genetic abnormality today maybe a precursor to an advantageous genetic characteristic in the future ie it could mutate still further to be desirable in some unknown future environment. Randomness and diversity has sustained the existence of life for over 3 billion years...it's clearly a strength and not a weakness. An "abnormaility" is but one ingredient in the melting pot of possibilities that helps Life to insure itself against adversity and possible extinction.

Edited December 8, 2011 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

An IQ score of 100 is the average. Someone who supports this idea now because they are on the top side of 100 may find themselves on the bottom side of 100 after this is implemented. Oops!

[Moontanman]

A bit of news that relates to this subject

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207133053.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_health+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+News+--+Top+Health%29

[John Cuthber]

It's odd that most people understand that biodiversity is a good thing, but some idiots fail to realise that it applies to us too.

 

Humans are not very big or very strong. Our major asset in terms of success is that we can communicate so well and cooperate.

Our ability to communicate is the basis of our ability to cooperate, and it is that cooperation that explains why we are so successful.

 

Perhaps the first group we should "cleanse" from the species is not the slow learners or the unfit, but those who don't understand the importance of cooperation.

 

A way to identify them would be to see who thinks eugenics is a good idea, after all- you never seem to hear anyone saying "I'm going to kill myself because it will improve the gene pool" they always plan to kill others.

[Phi for All]

It's odd that most people understand that biodiversity is a good thing, but some idiots fail to realise that it applies to us too.

 

Humans are not very big or very strong. Our major asset in terms of success is that we can communicate so well and cooperate.

Our ability to communicate is the basis of our ability to cooperate, and it is that cooperation that explains why we are so successful.

 

Perhaps the first group we should "cleanse" from the species is not the slow learners or the unfit, but those who don't understand the importance of cooperation.

 

A way to identify them would be to see who thinks eugenics is a good idea, after all- you never seem to hear anyone saying "I'm going to kill myself because it will improve the gene pool" they always plan to kill others.

I just can't give you the sheer volume of reputation points you deserve for this post. I'm mailing you a cookie instead.

[Eugenics]

Certain negative attributes can be correlated with higher IQ, such as alcoholism.

 

We may need the perfect temperature.... Intelligent enough so that our environment isn't our enemy, but not too intelligent that we become our own enemy.. and destroy ourselves/the environment.

 

If we were so intelligent that we could see outside of our aquarium, would we continue to swim? But then what is the point of long term survival if it's not for greater intelligence?

I am not content with how humans are currently, we are the only highly intelligent animal on Earth so we should continue progressing until we are the most intelligent beings we can become.

 

There's three major problems with this idea. First, you're implying desired intelligence is toward mathematics, spatial reasoning and logic, as they are the main areas tapped by IQ tests. This is ideal if you want to promote a society of mathematicians, physicists and logicians but it has no implication for other sciences. Second, suppose a society actually does what you suggest. In a society full of highly intelligent individuals, you'll still need people to perform non-intelligent menial tasks, such as drive trucks, collect household garbage, clean sewers, etc... . These intelligent future scientists will have to perform these non-intelligent duties to serve society but that's going against what you proposed because you envisioned a society full of scientists who can put their abilities to good work. In the end, would it not make sense to not sterilize non-intelligent individuals so they can perform these tasks allowing all the highly intelligent individuals to be free to put their abilities to work? However, that is inconsistent with the sterilization you're suggesting, which then begs the question, how do you decide which highly intelligent individual performs such menial tasks? Third, will "savants" be spared if their talent is useful for science but not tapped by IQ scores?

Maybe a new IQ test can be created that encompasses all areas of intelligence, I am not saying my view of Eugenics cant be improved, obviously before we implemented this idea we would get all the top biologists together to figure out the best plan. Highly intelligent people can do menial tasks, but they can also envision how to make their tasks easier and more automated. Maybe a high IQ janitor will invent a robot that can mop the floors for him, the possibilities are endless. That is what drove human kind to be as intelligent as we are today, creating tools to make our lives easier. Now our lives are too easy so the idiots are benefiting from the intelligent peoples inventions. Idiots will have 10 children that our welfare pays for, they birth them in hospitals that wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for highly intelligent doctors, and actual intelligent people will go to college, find a career, buy a house, and then maybe have 1 or 2 kids tops. Instead of survival of the fittest, it has become survival of the parasitic. What happens when the parasites don't have any more intelligent people to leech off of? Mass human depopulation.

During the Space Race a janitor at a NASA facility was asked what his job was. He replied, "I'm helping to put a man on the moon." We need more janitors than scientists.

 

You assess that the only meritorious characteristic of humans is their intelligence. Give me a choice between a caring, compassionate, enthusiastic individual with an IQ of 70, or a morose, self indulgent, patronising person with an IQ of 150 and I know who I'll be proppping up the bar with.

 

You wish to eliminate people with known genetic defects.

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

 

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

 

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

 

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

 

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

 

How good is your eyesight, eugenics? Do you have any tendency to dental caries? A trace of asthma in your family? Can you run a mile in less than 4 minutes 30 seconds? Things aren't looking so good for you my boy.

 

Finally, do you want to be the one to tell Stephen Hawkings, or shall I?

Who says people with IQs of 150 cant be kind caring compassionate etc... There are jerks of every intelligence level.

 

Your post proves Godwin's Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

And nope I am very healthy, no genetic defects in my family history.

Proactively tampering with genetic characteristics in a species, through eugenics, to favour one over another could reduce its long-term survivability by reducing the diversity of progeny it can produce ie it's not possible to predict what characteristics maybe required for a species to survive some novel and adverse future circumstance.

Yes it could reduce its long-term survivability, or it could increase its long-term survivability. It all depends if you use Eugenics to increase long term survival characteristics or not. I believe with more intelligence we will survive the longest, because we can invent new methods to survive, also with more intelligence we can more quickly advance into a type 2 civilization which will increase our survivability indefinitely.

 

Also, I suspect that nearly everyone is a carrier for some recessive genetic abnormality or another. There are, after all, so many of them...

Correct, I never said sterilize people with those genetic defects hidden in their DNA, just abort the fetuses that will be born with those defects manifested.

 

This statement is incredibly useful in determining that the enunicator of it has no idea.

 

Even if every single member of one generation contributed identical genetic information to the next (i.e. perfect neutral selection), which they don't - stochastic genetic drift would ensure that human populations will temporally diverge (i.e. evolve). Evolution does not "stop" and implying that it does conclusively suggests you have a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

What you're actually saying is that you've:

1) subjectively determined the characters which you've decided should be desirable in humans;

2) assumed them to be heritable and not environmentally induced;

3) decided based on your anecdotal experience that these traits are not currently being selected for;

4) proposed draconian methods of ensuring their selection.

 

Given your fundamental lack of understanding regarding the evolutionary process, the speculative nature of assumptions 1-3 and the ethical unacceptability of 4, the concept of eugenics you present and the subsequent actions you suggest are dismissible.

When I said evolve I meant evolve for the better, we as a species can and are becoming more stupid, but we have ceased to progress in intelligence. Natural selection is not applicable to humans any more because now the worst of us survive because we have the technology to keep them alive when a thousand years ago we did not. The unfit are not only surviving but having more children than the fittest, because of social and economic factors.

 

That which is considered to be a genetic abnormality today maybe a precursor to an advantageous genetic characteristic in the future ie it could mutate still further to be desirable in some unknown future environment. Randomness and diversity has sustained the existence of life for over 3 billion years...it's clearly a strength and not a weakness. An "abnormaility" is but one ingredient in the melting pot of possibilities that helps Life to insure itself against adversity and possible extinction.

I am pretty sure down syndrome will never be a desirable characteristic in the future, and if it is, that is a future I hope to never see. Plus by increasing the amount of intelligent individuals, we will more quickly be able to create the technology to edit genes, and we will be able to create the mutations on our own, we will basically have 100% control over our own evolution. We will become gods!

 

An IQ score of 100 is the average. Someone who supports this idea now because they are on the top side of 100 may find themselves on the bottom side of 100 after this is implemented. Oops!

So what? The stupidest of us will still be fairly intelligent, rather than knuckle dragging morons like nowadays.

 

It's odd that most people understand that biodiversity is a good thing, but some idiots fail to realise that it applies to us too.

 

Humans are not very big or very strong. Our major asset in terms of success is that we can communicate so well and cooperate.

Our ability to communicate is the basis of our ability to cooperate, and it is that cooperation that explains why we are so successful.

 

Perhaps the first group we should "cleanse" from the species is not the slow learners or the unfit, but those who don't understand the importance of cooperation.

 

A way to identify them would be to see who thinks eugenics is a good idea, after all- you never seem to hear anyone saying "I'm going to kill myself because it will improve the gene pool" they always plan to kill others.

Bio diversity is generally a good thing for survival of a species, but we can have bio diversity among only intelligent people. Idiots will never be as fit to survive as a smart person, therefore we must slowly weed them out to use our resources for people who are more worthy of them.

Morons don't communicate effectively, they rely on emotions instead of logic. You are right one great asset to our survival is communication, but it needs to be intelligent communication, which can only be done through intelligent people.

Watch this video, this thing can be the poster girl for Eugenics.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Eugenics

[Arete]

Given only 20.5% of people who complete a science PhD (i.e.. are trained as scientists) in the UK actually pursue a career in science, and a measly 0.45% end up as tenured academics, it seems like we actually have an oversupply of scientists as it is.

 

http://tomhartley.po...m/r-e-s-p-e-c-t

 

When I said evolve I meant evolve for the better, we as a species can and are becoming more stupid, but we have ceased to progress in intelligence.

 

Do you actually have an evidence of this or is it pure speculation? More people are graduating university than ever before: http://www.lawsonry.com/698-the-devaluation-of-undergraduate-education/

http://www.educator.com/news/2009/why-your-college-degree-is-getting-devalued/

 

Natural selection is not applicable to humans any more because now the worst of us survive because we have the technology to keep them alive when a thousand years ago we did not. The unfit are not only surviving but having more children than the fittest, because of social and economic factors.

Natural selection cannot simply stop applying to a population of organisms; pick up a textbook and learn what the theory of evolution actually is. Fitness = fecundity, not your subjective interpretation of desirable/undesirable traits. Just because the traits you've subjectively decided should be advantageous do not necessarily result in increased breeding potential does not mean you get to bin natural selection.

 

What you're proselytizing is Social Darwinism which is to Evolution what Scientology is to science.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Arete