Eugenics

[John Cuthber]

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

 

Thanks,

I was going to go with the short snappy version.

 

"Eugenics is a great idea- we should start with the people who don't understand the importance of human biodiversity"

 

but I was concerned that some people might not understand it. As it turns out, Eugenics initially ignored it anyway.

Perhaps we should start with him.

Edited December 8, 2011 by John Cuthber

[Eugenics]

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

 

 

 

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

http://www.educator....tting-devalued/

 

 

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.

 

That is a problem with how we fund science, science needs to be more efficiently funded.

 

Yes it can, natural selection means that when an organism is not fit to survive, it dies. Humans have created methods to keep someone from dying when normally they would have. We can use our intelligence to steer evolution in favor of more desirable characteristics, just because something can happen naturally doesn't mean it HAS to happen naturally. Look up "artificial selection."

 

Thanks,

I was going to go with the short snappy version.

 

"Eugenics is a great idea- we should start with the people who don't understand the importance of human biodiversity"

 

but I was concerned that some people might not understand it. As it turns out, Eugenics initially ignored it anyway.

Perhaps we should start with him.

 

I initially ignored it because I don't like being flamed. You aren't original. Either seriously participate in the discussion or don't. Stop making cutesy little comments like, "If you want to have eugenics start by killing yourself tee hee." All you're doing is seeking acceptance from your peers. You say things you know they will agree with because that is the way your brain is programmed to think. If everyone was here agreeing that Eugenics was a good idea you would too, and you know it. Don't even try to lie, you are a sheep following the crowd. Eugenics was a widely accepted science before Germany used it and it became infamous. I am here to say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is still a valid science we can use to shape our destiny.

[Arete]

Natural selection doesn't simply stop because an artificial selective force is applied to a population....are you still arguing that natural selection doesn't apply to humans (which is demonstrably false - e.g. http://rheumatology..../6/485.full.pdf), or simply that your methods of selection a superior to nature?

 

The impact of modern medicine on human suvivorship has no correlation to the supposed need for "intelligence" based selection - so it does little for your argument.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Arete

[Phi for All]

Either seriously participate in the discussion or don't. Stop making cutesy little comments like, "If you want to have eugenics start by killing yourself tee hee."

His reply about biodiversity WAS serious, and his explanation succinct and spot on. His comment about starting with those who believe in eugenics was merely hilarious.

 

All you're doing is seeking acceptance from your peers. You say things you know they will agree with because that is the way your brain is programmed to think. If everyone was here agreeing that Eugenics was a good idea you would too, and you know it. Don't even try to lie, you are a sheep following the crowd.

You really don't know John Cuthber. This definition shouldn't be on the same planet with him.

 

He's the most contrary, stubborn, anti-crowd person I've seen on these boards, EVER. He's bitten my head off many times and that was when I agreed with him. He eats sheep for breakfast.

[Appolinaria]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These musical geniuses understand complexities that we do not. Appreciate the beauty of all things born from nature, don't liken yourself to a majestic power that could destroy you in a second.

 

And where would we be if we aborted Hawking?

[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!

 

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

 

 

The point is, half of the population will always be sterilized. Let's say after a while the dumbest person in the world is an Einstein equivalent. That person will have to be sterilized because he is too dumb.

 

And even if you are spared from sterilization now due to your above average IQ (I'm assuming you would not have made this proposal if your IQ was less than 100), you may be castrated in 20 years when the average IQ goes up and you dropped below 100.

[Eugenics]

 

These musical geniuses understand complexities that we do not. Appreciate the beauty of all things born from nature, don't liken yourself to a majestic power that could destroy you in a second.

 

And where would we be if we aborted Hawking?

Just because in a few rare cases retards can become good at music or math doesn't mean it is worth the economic burden of paying social security disability benefits for all of them to live.

 

Hawking didn't develop his disease until he was in college. He was not born with it.

 

The point is, half of the population will always be sterilized. Let's say after a while the dumbest person in the world is an Einstein equivalent. That person will have to be sterilized because he is too dumb.

 

And even if you are spared from sterilization now due to your above average IQ (I'm assuming you would not have made this proposal if your IQ was less than 100), you may be castrated in 20 years when the average IQ goes up and you dropped below 100.

 

I don't think I would be intelligent enough to understand Eugenics if my IQ was below 100. I didn't say everyone below the average IQ should be sterilized, I said everyone below 100. I think people with an IQ of 100 are smart enough to participate in society without causing any trouble due to their intelligence level. Anything lower than that and their tendency to commit violent crimes goes way up.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Eugenics

[John Cuthber]

 

I initially ignored it because I don't like being flamed. You aren't original. Either seriously participate in the discussion or don't. Stop making cutesy little comments like, "If you want to have eugenics start by killing yourself tee hee." All you're doing is seeking acceptance from your peers. You say things you know they will agree with because that is the way your brain is programmed to think. If everyone was here agreeing that Eugenics was a good idea you would too, and you know it. Don't even try to lie, you are a sheep following the crowd. Eugenics was a widely accepted science before Germany used it and it became infamous. I am here to say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is still a valid science we can use to shape our destiny.

Once you have finished making plainly silly comments about my motivation and such, please feel free to address the point I made.

Why don't you think biodiversity works for humans?

It's you who would throw the baby out with the bathwater. You seek to throw out "problems" that mankind has successfully dealt with since before we were mankind- and, to do it you intend to destroy a lot of valuable people (and their genetic variability).

 

Oh, and don't get me started on the use of IQ as a selection criterion.

It's well known for being biassed in a number of ways, not least, race.

Why not cut out the middle man and just kill off the black people?

That might not be your intention- but it would be the effect of your poor choice of selection method.

 

It seems odd to me that you have noticed that "Eugenics was a widely accepted science ... and it became infamous. " but have yet to realise why.

 

 

And, re "I don't think I would be intelligent enough to understand Eugenics if my IQ was below 100. I didn't say everyone below the average IQ should be sterilized, I said everyone below 100. "

 

LOL

 

100 is the average- by definition.so it is logically equivalent to replace one term by the other

To paraphrase.

I don't think I would be intelligent enough to understand Eugenics if my IQ was below 100. I didn't say everyone below 100 should be sterilized, I said everyone below 100.

But it's the self referential parody that really cracked me up "I don't think I would be intelligent enough to understand Eugenics if my IQ was below 100."

Well, you plainly don't, so perhaps it isn't so perhaps we ought to start with you.

Edited December 8, 2011 by John Cuthber

[Eugenics]

Once you have finished making plainly silly comments about my motivation and such, please feel free to address the point I made.

Why don't you think biodiversity works for humans?

It's you who would throw the baby out with the bathwater. You seek to throw out "problems" that mankind has successfully dealt with since before we were mankind- and, to do it you intend to destroy a lot of valuable people (and their genetic variability).

 

Oh, and don't get me started on the use of IQ as a selection criterion.

It's well known for being biassed in a number of ways, not least, race.

Why not cut out the middle man and just kill off the black people?

That might not be your intention- but it would be the effect of your poor choice of selection method.

 

It seems odd to me that you have noticed that "Eugenics was a widely accepted science ... and it became infamous. " but have yet to realise why.

 

Sure biodiversity will help us survive, but that is all it will do. If we want to progress and become more intelligent we will have to use Eugenics, or some environmental catastrophe like an ice age will have to occur which will kill off the stupid people.

 

Just because blacks have a lower average IQ doesn't mean the IQ test is racist... The ice age caused the homo sapiens in the north (Whites and East Asians) to evolve a higher average intelligence. The more creative intelligent people survived because they found food, the dumb ones froze. Africans however didn't experience a loss of food due to the cold, While the people up north created farming, blacks continued hunting and gathering because the environment didn't demand a higher intelligence from them, that is why there are so many black olympic runners, while the northern races were gaining brain mass, the blacks were gaining leg muscle and faster fibers in their legs so they could catch up to their prey.

 

It's not racism it is evolution.

[John Cuthber]

Sure biodiversity will help us survive, but that is all it will do. If we want to progress and become more intelligent we will have to use Eugenics, or some environmental catastrophe like an ice age will have to occur which will kill off the stupid people.

 

Just because blacks have a lower average IQ doesn't mean the IQ test is racist... The ice age caused the homo sapiens in the north (Whites and East Asians) to evolve a higher average intelligence. The more creative intelligent people survived because they found food, the dumb ones froze. Africans however didn't experience a loss of food due to the cold, While the people up north created farming, blacks continued hunting and gathering because the environment didn't demand a higher intelligence from them, that is why there are so many black olympic runners, while the northern races were gaining brain mass, the blacks were gaining leg muscle and faster fibers in their legs so they could catch up to their prey.

 

It's not racism it is evolution.

Congratulations! You have just demolished your own arguments much better than I could have hoped to.

Also, while I admit I was getting some fun out of making a fool of you, again, you have done such a good job I can't hope to do better.

Perhaps, by way of compensation, you would like to tell a few more of those jokes about me being a conformist sheep. I, for one, found them hilarious and I think others here did too.

[Arete]

 

It's not racism it is evolution.

 

Again it's social Darwinism which is as much of misconception of evolution as Scientology is of science.

[Eugenics]

Again it's social Darwinism which is as much of misconception of evolution as Scientology is of science.

 

No... Scientology is a stupid religion made by a science fiction writer. Social Darwinism is evolution put into a social context. You are the one with the misconception.

[Arete]

No... Scientology is a stupid religion made by a science fiction writer. Social Darwinism is evolution put into a social context. You are the one with the misconception.

 

Fitness is increased fecundity. Nothing more, nothing less, ascribing your personal subjective views of what a "fit" or "unfit" phenotype is to the theory of evolution is make believe nonsense which requires you to turf out all of the basic concepts of evolutionary theory. It's as illogical and stupid as Scientology.

 

http://evolution.ber...eptions_faq.php

http://www.talkorigi...hil/social.html

http://autocww.color...lDarwinism.html

http://www.pbs.org/w.../darwin/nameof/

 

Someone who has more offspring than you is evolutionary speaking - fitter than you regardless of them being dumber, uglier or less athletically capable than you. The environmental circumstances which led them to have more offspring than you is "selection". Your preconceptions of fitness have no basis in evolutionary theory and your subscription of them to is is make believe unless they have a demonstrable outcome on fecundity. Thusly, Social Darwinism is not "evolution put into a social context".

Edited December 8, 2011 by Arete

[zapatos]

I don't think I would be intelligent enough to understand Eugenics if my IQ was below 100. I didn't say everyone below the average IQ should be sterilized, I said everyone below 100. I think people with an IQ of 100 are smart enough to participate in society without causing any trouble due to their intelligence level. Anything lower than that and their tendency to commit violent crimes goes way up.

So you make a proposal that is so far reaching that half the world's population must be sterilized, based on an IQ level of 100, without even knowing what an IQ level of 100 means.

 

You are then told what an IQ level of 100 means.

 

And you still don't know what an IQ level of 100 means.

 

Wow!

 

Instead of insulting the kesha tic toc girl, maybe you should have said "Read this thread, this thing who started it can be the poster boy for Eugenics."

Edited December 8, 2011 by zapatos

[Appolinaria]

youre separating yourself from people like that girl, or people who watch jersey shore, because they embarass you... probably because deep down you are similar to them. its okay little guy, youre intelligent. you dont need to kill off the population to feel better.

 

if you really cared about evolution, and not demonstrating elitism to fuel your ego, or counteracting the shame you feel for being human, youd be spending your time going green... or saving the planet, or whatever. things that will surely kill us off entirely. high iq or not.

[Eugenics]

Fitness is increased fecundity. Nothing more, nothing less, ascribing your personal subjective views of what a "fit" or "unfit" phenotype is to the theory of evolution is make believe nonsense which requires you to turf out all of the basic concepts of evolutionary theory. It's as illogical and stupid as Scientology.

 

http://evolution.ber...eptions_faq.php

http://www.talkorigi...hil/social.html

http://autocww.color...lDarwinism.html

http://www.pbs.org/w.../darwin/nameof/

 

Let's say there are two types of bacteria, bacteria A, and bacteria B. Both are infectious to humans. Bacteria A is much more contagious and reproduces much faster than bacteria B. Each bacteria is introduced into isolated populations of humans. Neither population has immunity or medicine to counteract the bacteria.

 

Bacteria A will be much more successful in the short term, but end up killing its population off and once it runs out of a food source it will end up dying, meanwhile bacteria B will grow much slower and act symbiotically with the humans, therefore lasting much longer than bacteria A.

 

Which was more fit to survive? Bacteria A had better fecundity, but bacteria B was more FIT because it survived longer. Do you understand now?

 

youre separating yourself from people like that girl, or people who watch jersey shore, because they embarass you... probably because deep down you are similar to them. its okay little guy, youre intelligent. you dont need to kill off the population to feel better.

 

if you really cared about evolution, and not demonstrating elitism to fuel your ego, or counteracting the shame you feel for being human, youd be spending your time going green... or saving the planet, or whatever. things that will surely kill us off entirely. high iq or not.

They embarrass me because they are the same species as me. I feel like after billions of years of evolution the outcome should be a little better than that...

 

It's our overpopulation of idiots that are causing environmental problems. When we have more people with a high IQ, we will figure out ways to reverse the problems inflicted upon us by greedy low IQ idiots. What is so wrong with wanting to improve human kind? I personally think it is a noble ambition.

[Arete]

You just moved the goalposts: Individual fitness =/= differential population dynamics.

 

Differential comparisons of "fitness" and "success" in allopatric, divergent populations is disingenuous to the topic of eugenics or individuals within a population. Look up population genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics

 

The argument is also entirely irrelevant with respect to eugenics.

[Eugenics]

You just moved the goalposts: Individual fitness =/= differential population dynamics.

 

Differential comparisons of "fitness" and "success" in allopatric, divergent populations is disingenuous to the topic of eugenics or individuals within a population. Look up population genetics: http://en.wikipedia....lation_genetics

 

The argument is also entirely irrelevant with respect to eugenics.

 

It is completely relevant, an idiot might be more fit meaning they have more children due to the welfare system, but they are a parasite, once that niche of welfare runs out, their survival tactic fails and they die off. But people with intelligence who have fewer children will survive in the long run because they plan ahead.

 

 

This woman has more children than you I assume. Does that make her DNA more "fit" for long term survival than you are?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Eugenics

[John Cuthber]

Thanks Eugenics,

The jokes are getting better and better.

In case anyone is wondering, Godwin's law doesn't apply when people are talking about things that really are as preposterously offensive as the Nazis.

The idea of eugenics is one of their better known irrationalities.

 

"They embarrass me because they are the same species as me. I feel like after billions of years of evolution the outcome should be a little better than that..." They may well think the same about you and, from my point of view, they are right.

 

And you really need to look up big words like "symbiotically" before you use them so wrongly.

In your example, all the people and all the bugs die.

That's also the problem with eugenics.

I could go on, but I'm tired and so are your arguments.

In the morning, I will be a lot fresher.

Edited December 8, 2011 by John Cuthber

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm still curious about my points in post #8.

 

Is your goal to make humanity smarter, or happier? Because ethically it seems we should aim for the latter, and I'm not sure you're going to achieve it via killing off half the population.

[Arete]

This woman has more children than you I assume. Does that make her DNA more "fit" for long term survival than you are?

 

An individual's genetic "fitness" in an evolutionary context is defined by the ability of that individual to maximize the quotient of their genetic information in the next generation. If she is able to maximise the amount of her genetic information in the next generation of humans more effectively than I she is genetically fitter.

 

A species or population's genetic fitness is measured by its genetic diversity, as genetic diversity is indicative of phenotypic diversity, which is perceived to maximise the resilience of a population or species to environmental fluctuation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_genetics#The_importance_of_genetic_diversity

 

Eugenic principles apply subjective values to arbitrary phenotypic traits and suggest artificially selecting for these traits. This, by definition reduces the genetic diversity of population and thus reduces evolutionary fitness.

 

As an example, Pug dogs have experienced intensive selection for a desired phenotype. As a result they are extremely genetically depauperate - they have less allelic diversity than Pandas. The application of eugenic principles have led to an extremely evolutionarily unhealthy breed. http://www.nature.co...ature04338.html http://www.nature.co...epage&q&f=false

Edited December 8, 2011 by Arete

[UltimateBioGeek]

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.

 

I fail to see why "top psychologists" would not be included as well, seeing as how IQ tests are part of their field. You can modify the content of an IQ test all you want so it encompasses multiple areas of intelligence but it still does not remove many of the problematic features of an IQ test. For example, if IQ tests are given to children with whatever cut-off threshold for "gifted", it creates a problem because children whose IQ is just slightly below that threshold won't receive differentiated education despite the fact they may benefit from it. This calls into question the effectiveness of relying solely on an IQ score versus a range. However, assuming you agree that a range would be better, there's yet another problem. Parents would want their children to have a high IQ score, so they may expose them to practice IQ tests, akin to the Chapters bookstore selling practice MCAT tests. I don't know how much their IQ score would improve but it seems very likely that it would improve nonetheless.

 

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.

 

True, a highly intelligent janitor could invent a robot to do the job for him as well as others janitors. The problem is these janitors are now replaced by machines, creating a surplus of highly intelligent janitors who have to find some other job but in the mean time, they have to be supported by other people, which is one of your complaints of "idiots".

 

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.

 

The idiots purchase these inventions, which means they are economically useful. They may rely on government support and still be viewed as parasites, however, they perform a crucial task. Highly intelligent people can do the same, however, if an idiot has 10 children that all become adults, then there are at least 12 economically useful individuals, versus 3-4 highly intelligent members of a family. The highly intelligent individuals may be very wealthy, however, if the idiots outnumber them, then the economy collapses upon their removal.

 

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

 

You just referred to a set of highly intelligent people as moronic. In the first quote in this response, you advocated for broadening the range of intelligences tested and one such intelligence is interpersonal or social. Such individuals do not rely on logic, rather they rely on improved emotional and social functioning. I fail to see how communication can be enhanced if emotions are taken out of the picture.

 

 

Just because in a few rare cases retards can become good at music or math doesn't mean it is worth the economic burden of paying social security disability benefits for all of them to live.

 

You're contradicting yourself because a savant whose abilities lie within math and logic may do amazing on an IQ test, which has been fundamental for your arguments. Their abilities can without a doubt contribute. For example, Jacob Barnett is 12 years old, IQ of 170 and studying astrophysics, attempting to alter Einstein's theory of relativity and propose his theory of how the universe formed. To me that seems pretty important as well as amazing, yet you're suggesting he's a burden and not worth it.

 

I didn't say everyone below the average IQ should be sterilized, I said everyone below 100.

 

I don't think you understand IQ testing because the average is 100 with standard deviations of 15... .

 

I think people with an IQ of 100 are smart enough to participate in society without causing any trouble due to their intelligence level. Anything lower than that and their tendency to commit violent crimes goes way up.

 

Current IQ tests have no bearing on how someone will function in society. For example, Jacob Barnett has an IQ of 170 but also has Asperger's Syndrome so his social functioning may very well be disrupted. That aside, you're implying someone with an IQ of 95 has the same intellectual disability as someone with an IQ of 20. I fail to see how a mere 5 points is a sign of drastic impairment, can you explain?

[Appolinaria]

Life seems very desperate to sprout up in the soil of space, like a parasite waiting for the perfect host… Even if you have no emotion or compassion for others, you should be damned to go against that out of respect, if anything.

 

[Eugenics]

I fail to see why "top psychologists" would not be included as well, seeing as how IQ tests are part of their field. You can modify the content of an IQ test all you want so it encompasses multiple areas of intelligence but it still does not remove many of the problematic features of an IQ test. For example, if IQ tests are given to children with whatever cut-off threshold for "gifted", it creates a problem because children whose IQ is just slightly below that threshold won't receive differentiated education despite the fact they may benefit from it. This calls into question the effectiveness of relying solely on an IQ score versus a range. However, assuming you agree that a range would be better, there's yet another problem. Parents would want their children to have a high IQ score, so they may expose them to practice IQ tests, akin to the Chapters bookstore selling practice MCAT tests. I don't know how much their IQ score would improve but it seems very likely that it would improve nonetheless.

 

 

 

True, a highly intelligent janitor could invent a robot to do the job for him as well as others janitors. The problem is these janitors are now replaced by machines, creating a surplus of highly intelligent janitors who have to find some other job but in the mean time, they have to be supported by other people, which is one of your complaints of "idiots".

 

 

 

The idiots purchase these inventions, which means they are economically useful. They may rely on government support and still be viewed as parasites, however, they perform a crucial task. Highly intelligent people can do the same, however, if an idiot has 10 children that all become adults, then there are at least 12 economically useful individuals, versus 3-4 highly intelligent members of a family. The highly intelligent individuals may be very wealthy, however, if the idiots outnumber them, then the economy collapses upon their removal.

 

 

 

You just referred to a set of highly intelligent people as moronic. In the first quote in this response, you advocated for broadening the range of intelligences tested and one such intelligence is interpersonal or social. Such individuals do not rely on logic, rather they rely on improved emotional and social functioning. I fail to see how communication can be enhanced if emotions are taken out of the picture.

 

 

 

 

You're contradicting yourself because a savant whose abilities lie within math and logic may do amazing on an IQ test, which has been fundamental for your arguments. Their abilities can without a doubt contribute. For example, Jacob Barnett is 12 years old, IQ of 170 and studying astrophysics, attempting to alter Einstein's theory of relativity and propose his theory of how the universe formed. To me that seems pretty important as well as amazing, yet you're suggesting he's a burden and not worth it.

 

 

 

I don't think you understand IQ testing because the average is 100 with standard deviations of 15... .

 

 

 

Current IQ tests have no bearing on how someone will function in society. For example, Jacob Barnett has an IQ of 170 but also has Asperger's Syndrome so his social functioning may very well be disrupted. That aside, you're implying someone with an IQ of 95 has the same intellectual disability as someone with an IQ of 20. I fail to see how a mere 5 points is a sign of drastic impairment, can you explain?

 

The average IQ is not 100. It varies depending on the area you are in.

That kid Jacob is stupid, he is trying to disprove the big bang theory. What a moron. I think his parents lie about their sons talents just to get publicity.

 

Also I never said if your IQ is 95 it is a drastic impairment. I said the lower you go below 100 the higher risk you have of committing violent crime.

 

An individual's genetic "fitness" in an evolutionary context is defined by the ability of that individual to maximize the quotient of their genetic information in the next generation. If she is able to maximise the amount of her genetic information in the next generation of humans more effectively than I she is genetically fitter.

 

A species or population's genetic fitness is measured by its genetic diversity, as genetic diversity is indicative of phenotypic diversity, which is perceived to maximise the resilience of a population or species to environmental fluctuation. http://en.wikipedia....netic_diversity

 

Eugenic principles apply subjective values to arbitrary phenotypic traits and suggest artificially selecting for these traits. This, by definition reduces the genetic diversity of population and thus reduces evolutionary fitness.

 

As an example, Pug dogs have experienced intensive selection for a desired phenotype. As a result they are extremely genetically depauperate - they have less allelic diversity than Pandas. The application of eugenic principles have led to an extremely evolutionarily unhealthy breed. http://www.nature.co...ature04338.html http://www.nature.co...epage&q&f=false

 

The difference is dog breeders didn't know as much about biology that we do now. Just sterilizing stupid people will not turn us into unhealthy pugs. Yes it will decrees our diversity temporarily, but not long enough to make a difference, we will become just as diverse, just a whole lot smarter.

 

I'm still curious about my points in post #8.

 

Is your goal to make humanity smarter, or happier? Because ethically it seems we should aim for the latter, and I'm not sure you're going to achieve it via killing off half the population.

 

By making humanity smarter, they will invent new ways to make life easier, therefore making humanity happier. Think back to the dark ages when most people were stupid and shunned intelligence for religion. They weren't very happy.

[swansont]

It's our overpopulation of idiots that are causing environmental problems. When we have more people with a high IQ, we will figure out ways to reverse the problems inflicted upon us by greedy low IQ idiots. What is so wrong with wanting to improve human kind? I personally think it is a noble ambition.

 

!

Moderator Note

Just want to remind you of rule 1c (Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.). If you are going to claim this, it is incumbent upon you to establish that "greedy low IQ idiots" have inflicted problems upon us and that higher IQ equals improvement.

 

If you just want to spew invective, though, this will be shut down.

 

Do not respond to this modnote