Eugenics

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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

False. The average is exactly defined to be 100, although there is minor regional variation.

 

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/rising-scores-on-intelligence-tests/2

 

By convention, the mean of each age group in the standardization sample defines an IQ score of 100; by further convention, the standard deviation of the sample defines 15 IQ points. Given appropriate sampling and a normal distribution, this implies that about two-thirds of the population in any given age group will have IQs between 85 and 115.

 

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.

Not necessarily true. Increased technology and quality of life does not always correspond to increased happiness.

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/14091/

 

If altering the human species to achieve happiness is the goal, something like the society in A Brave New World would be far more effective.

[mississippichem]

Think back to the dark ages when most people were stupid and shunned intelligence for religion. They weren't very happy.

 

So you admit that at least some part of intelligence is influenced by environmental factors. If you had lived in Europe in the 1400's would you have been "stupid"?

 

Take another example...a guy living in a nomadic desert tribe doesn't need to know any multi-variable calculus to survive. His living situation has not given him the luxury of being able to take the time to learn the finer points of mathematics and logic. He takes an IQ test and does very poorly but he is an expert desert navigator and knows everything there is to know about horse and camel care/riding/training. Should he be euthanized with all the other "idiots"?

[John Cuthber]

" 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."

Make up your mind. If it won't make a difference then it's not worth doing. If it does make a difference then we shouldn't do it.

Incidentally, who, in your brave new world, is going to empty the bins?

[Arete]

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.

 

So to paraphrase - "Halving Ne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_population_size)will have a negligible effect on allelic diversity." This is just not correct - it violates population genetic theory rather thoroughly.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Arete

[Appolinaria]

I think the IQ of geniuses that live their lives cleaning trash bins would decline. If not, they'd probably be unsatisfied with the lack of mental stimulation and resort to suicide.

[Eugenics]

False. The average is exactly defined to be 100, although there is minor regional variation.

 

http://www.americans...ligence-tests/2

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily true. Increased technology and quality of life does not always correspond to increased happiness.

 

https://www.technolo.../Biotech/14091/

 

If altering the human species to achieve happiness is the goal, something like the society in A Brave New World would be far more effective.

Ok go live in Somalia and then tell me technology/quality of life doesn't lead to a happier life...

 

So you admit that at least some part of intelligence is influenced by environmental factors. If you had lived in Europe in the 1400's would you have been "stupid"?

 

Take another example...a guy living in a nomadic desert tribe doesn't need to know any multi-variable calculus to survive. His living situation has not given him the luxury of being able to take the time to learn the finer points of mathematics and logic. He takes an IQ test and does very poorly but he is an expert desert navigator and knows everything there is to know about horse and camel care/riding/training. Should he be euthanized with all the other "idiots"?

All the smart people back in the dark ages would have been strapped to a table and tortured for being a heathen had they spoken out about anything. Stupid people outnumbered the smart people and the dark ages was the result. I don't see much difference between the dark ages and the near future if we continue electing stupid politicians, and allowing stupid people to breed like rabbits.

 

" 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."

Make up your mind. If it won't make a difference then it's not worth doing. If it does make a difference then we shouldn't do it.

Incidentally, who, in your brave new world, is going to empty the bins?

I meant our diversity wont be negatively effected long enough to cause our species harm. We will temporarily lose some diversity but will gain it back quickly. However our intelligence will be positively affected and will make a big difference.

 

I think the IQ of geniuses that live their lives cleaning trash bins would decline. If not, they'd probably be unsatisfied with the lack of mental stimulation and resort to suicide.

So your solution to that problem is to breed stupid people to clean up our trash bins for us? Sounds a bit like slavery... Plus I am only advocating sterilizing them not killing them. So don't worry there will still be plenty of stupid people around to pick up your trash. I however guarantee that within 100 years of industrializing intelligence most if not all of our menial jobs such as picking up the trash, mopping the floors, etc will be automated by inventions created by the numerous geniuses that are birthed. Imagine a world where every working class job is filled by a robot, and 100% of the human population can focus their efforts in designing new space flight technology, or new medicines to cure illnesses. Maybe even harness the power of the sun which will give us nearly limitless energy without pollution.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Eugenics

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ok go live in Somalia and then tell me technology/quality of life doesn't lead to a happier life...

Oh, I'm sure that adequate access to healthcare would certainly prevent a lot of suffering. But it seems like people adapt to their new level of quality of life and settle back to the same level of happiness after a while, eventually finding ways to complain about their new stuff.

 

 

Similarly, there's studies showing that people get happier as their incomes increase -- up to a limit, after which being able to afford yachts and 72" plasma screens and private jets doesn't make anyone happier.

 

If anything, we should be focusing on basic quality of life, which requires healthcare and economic reform, not revolutionary scientific discovery.

[Phi for All]

Are we assuming that the half of the population with IQs under 100 are going to be too stupid to know they're being sterilized? Wouldn't it be smarter to assume they're too stupid to see the advantages it will give to the rest of the population?

 

Is this something that will be done secretly, after everyone is tested? If not, once they're all sterilized, are we assuming all will be forgiven, or are we going to give them a prize or something to take the place of the children they wanted?

[Moontanman]

Eugenics is great... for all those other people....

[Arete]

I meant our diversity wont be negatively effected long enough to cause our species harm.

This is nonsensical:

Bottlenecks can and often occur in a single generation, which reduces both short and long term allelic diversity, and thus heterozygosity. Increased homozygosity is associated with increased incidences of genetic disease.

http://www.public.ia...olEcolNotes.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2387396

http://jhered.oxford...t/95/2/144.full

http://www.mendeley....nary-potential/

http://onlinelibrary...050212/abstract

http://www.springerl...r58412307k7517/

http://www.springerl...r58412307k7517/

http://www.nature.co...jhg201055a.html

http://www.pnas.org/.../45/19096.short

 

Rather than use IQ which is an environmentally correlated measurement of an arguable, multigenic trait (thus a rather idiotic measurement of intellect - as everyone's been telling you), lets show you how eugenics fails with genetic diseases.

 

Let's say that the prevalence of an allele coding for a genetic disease is in 10% of the population. Now most genetic diseases are recessive and thus only expressed in homozygotes.

 

So p=0.9 and q=0.1

 

p²=0.81 2pq=0.18 and q²=0.01

 

The ratio of undetected carriers to sufferers is 18 to 1. Eliminating people with detectable genetic disorders from the breeding population will be ineffective.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Arete

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

 

We are the Earths biosphere's method of reproduction.... to arbitrarily eliminate people due to their ability or lack there of to take a test is... I can't think of a word not insulting....

[Appolinaria]

We are the Earths biosphere's method of reproduction.... to arbitrarily eliminate people due to their ability or lack there of to take a test is... I can't think of a word not insulting....

 

Mhm.

[John Cuthber]

"I meant our diversity wont be negatively effected long enough to cause our species harm. We will temporarily lose some diversity but will gain it back quickly. "

How?

That's just not how it works.

[Appolinaria]

How can we assume how we alter the human race arbitrarily is the true cosmic plan? Tell me, have we even explored our entire planet? It's dumb to assume that high IQ's and a world full of geniuses is the goal when we are very uninformed on the point of it all. Let's not meddle until we're a little more informed on the grand scheme. Nature will do it's job.

 

 

[Eugenics]

"I meant our diversity wont be negatively effected long enough to cause our species harm. We will temporarily lose some diversity but will gain it back quickly. "

How?

That's just not how it works.

It's called the birds and the bees...

 

How can we assume how we alter the human race arbitrarily is the true cosmic plan? Tell me, have we even explored our entire planet? It's dumb to assume that high IQ's and a world full of geniuses is the goal when we are very uninformed on the point of it all. Let's not meddle until we're a little more informed on the grand scheme. Nature will do it's job.

Is this a science forum or a forum about some nature worshiping religion??? There is no "true cosmic plan," and nature doesn't have a job... Our only goal is what we want it to be. If your goal for humanity is to have 7 billion stupid people on a rock orbiting around a star in the milky way galaxy, be my guest. But my personal goal for humanity is to achieve everything we can possibly achieve, harness the suns energy, conquer our galaxy, reach out to the farthest corners of the universe, discover what exactly caused the big bang, etc... We haven't explored our entire planet because the hordes of low IQ people have different priorities, they cant think far ahead, their only concern is here and now, their current drama and problems, some celebrity gossip. That is why we must cleanse the earth of people who are complacent, docile, and stupid, and replace them with leaders, dreamers, inventors, and thinkers. The secrets of the universe are within our reach, we must break a few eggs before we can make an omelet.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Eugenics

[John Cuthber]

Don't make trite comments. Answer the question.

Your silly plan wipes out a lot of genes.

Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

You say they will come back quickly.

Well, since that statement is at odds with genetics, can you explain why you believe it.

[Eugenics]

Don't make trite comments. Answer the question.

Your silly plan wipes out a lot of genes.

Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

You say they will come back quickly.

Well, since that statement is at odds with genetics, can you explain why you believe it.

 

People have sex, people have more babies, new genetics take the place of the ones we wiped out...

[Arete]

People have sex, people have more babies, new genetics take the place of the ones we wiped out...

 

Or not: http://biologicalsys...population.html

 

 

You'll need to explain how basic population genetics does not apply to what you propose or it's nonsensical.

[John Cuthber]

Eugenics,

Stop and think for a minute.

You don't get new genes from nowhere.

Are you going to accept that you are wrong, or are you just going to say something silly again?

[Phi for All]

People have sex, people have more babies, new genetics take the place of the ones we wiped out...

Since you only selected for intelligence, isn't there a risk you're wiping out something beneficial?

[Appolinaria]

But people with intelligence who have fewer children will survive in the long run because they plan ahead.

 

 

China has a high average IQ. They're also very overpopulated. Try again.

 

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 going to sterilize you for your lack of proficiency in spelling.

 

How do you like eugenics now?

[vampares]

The intelligence of an organism does not give it any more right to live than, say, a tree.

 

The competency of a phenotype/genotype is subject to scrutiny. A biome has some investment in any given organism it contains. If an organism is destined to fail or looses valuable traits, there is an argument for culling populations. Domestication of animals and other organisms by humans places humans in a position to avert eventual harm to the environment.

[Daedalus]

My sons and I have Aspergers. This means that we have difficulties with social interaction, we have a hard time with speech and grammar, we can be extremely clumsy (I'm always banging my knees / shins into something while my youngest son likes to swing his arms around usually knocking stuff over), and we tend towards repetitive patterns with a huge focus / attention to specific functions. This condition is thought to be genetic and can exhibit behaviour which is not always linked with someone who is smart / intelligent. Some people with Aspergers can seem to be completely weird and out of place in society.

 

My oldest son and I focus primarily on numbers. We don't really know why. We just love anything that has to do with numbers and math. He can tell me exactly how many road signs, bridges, or on / off ramps we have passed whether I wanted to know it or not. But, he is also only eight years old. The problem with this Eugenics, is that Aspergers can manifest any range of behaviours and interests and my sons and I probably would not exist today if Eugenics was enforced. I'm not sure what percentage of people with Aspergers develop a focus on numbers. But considering that we can be socially awkward, have a hard time with speech / grammar, and be clumsy at times, our genes would most likely be targeted along with people who suffer from Autism.

 

You have to realize that people who have genetic disorders are not entirely destructive to society. Throughout my life I have managed to solve very complex mathematical equations:

 

Continued Summations of [math]x^p[/math]:

 

I solved this equation when I was in the 11th grade in high school. The following is a generalized equation which produces the polynomials that predict the Sth summation of [math]x^p[/math] from 1 to [math]n[/math], where [math]p[/math] is any natural number not including zero:

 

[math]F(S,\, n,\, p)=\sum_{j_{1}=1}^n \sum_{j_{2}=1}^{j_{1}} ... \sum_{x=1}^{j_{S}} (x^p)=\sum_{j=0}^p \left((-1)^{j+p} \left(\sum_{k=0}^j \frac{k^p \, \left \langle -j \right \rangle_{j-k}}{(j-k)!}\right)\left(\frac{\left \langle n \right \rangle_{j+s}}{(j+s)!} \right)\right)[/math]

 

 

Newton's Interpolation Formula:

 

My Calculus teacher, Mrs. Gilje, introduced me to Dr. Eli Eliason at the University of Oklahoma after I showed her the above equation. After explaining the process I used to solve the problem and showing him the equation below, he informed me that the following equation was discovered by Newton and is called Newton's interpolation formula (note: I have expanded the formula to include recursively summing the sequence such that when [math]s=0[/math] we get the original sequence and when [math]s=1[/math] we get the first summation of the sequence and so on):

 

[math]F(x, \, s,\, n) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\left( \sum_{j=0}^{i}\left(f(j)\frac{(-1)^{j}\ i!}{j!\ (i-j)!}\right) \frac{(-1)^{s}}{(i+s)!} \prod_{k=1}^{i+s}\left(k-s-x\right)\right)[/math]

 

Daedalus' Exponential Interpolation:

 

I seen other patterns in the above equations and developed an exponential interpolation equation just four months after I discovered the equations above:

 

[math]F(x, \, p,\, n) = \prod_{i=0}^{n-1}\left( \prod_{j=0}^{i}\left(f(j)^{\frac{(-1)^{j}\, i!}{j!\, (i-j)!}}\right)^{ \frac{(-1)^{p}}{(i+p)!} \displaystyle \prod_{k=1}^{i+p}\left(k-p-x\right)}\right)[/math]

 

Where [math]x[/math] is the variable, [math]p[/math] is the recursion level of the product as explained above, and we multiply the outputs from [math]0[/math] to [math]n-1[/math]. We can start from any number by modifying [math]f(j)[/math] to include a starting index, [math]f(j+start)[/math].

 

I have solved many more equations, but whether or not these equations were previously known is not the point. I'm not a genius by any means. Aspergers actually gives me and my son my son and I a desire to work on numbers that can seem to be unnatural at times. I have literally sat at my desk for 36 hours straight trying to solve a math problem and pass out due to exhaustion. That isn't entirely the result of Aspergers as I also have a few other disorders lol. I consider us lucky to have a focus on numbers and not something like drawing with crayons. But just because we can be socially awkward, have a hard time with speech and grammar, and clumsy (all of which is a result of a genetic disorder, Aspergers), does not give you the right to sterilize me or to have denied my parents the right to have conceived me.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Daedalus

[Ophiolite]

@Eugenics: two points.

 

1) I congratulate you on sticking to your guns with zero support and major attacks from all directions. It shows commitment and zeal.

 

2) Your proposal is ignorant and should be abandoned. The apparent motivation is that you attribute your own lack of success to interference by the underclasses. Try working harder and with more respect for your fellows and you might make it.

[Eugenics]

Or not: http://biologicalsys...population.html

 

 

You'll need to explain how basic population genetics does not apply to what you propose or it's nonsensical.

First of all, sterilizing stupid people wouldn't bottleneck the entire human population into two genotypes. Intelligent people have many different genotypes themselves. We will still have plenty of bio diversity left over after the sterilization process is complete, and through genetic variations we will gain new genetic diversity as time goes on. Many times bottlenecks are good for a species, natural selection bottlenecks organisms all the time, the weak genes die off while the fit genes produce more offspring. This would just be that process done artificially.

 

Eugenics,

Stop and think for a minute.

You don't get new genes from nowhere.

Are you going to accept that you are wrong, or are you just going to say something silly again?

Lol, that is EXACTLY where you get new genes from... NOWHERE! They randomly mutate and you get new genes! Sometimes its beneficial, sometimes it is harmful. Through natural selection the harmful variations usually die off, but due to human emotion, we try to keep the harmful genetic variations alive because it makes us feel all warm inside.

Since you only selected for intelligence, isn't there a risk you're wiping out something beneficial?

Yes there are risks involved and all of those risks would be taken into account beforehand. I am not advocating overnight sterilizing millions of people. It would be a very delicate processes and not taken lightly. All the worlds top scientists would have to reach some sort of concusses on how the process of Eugenics should operate.

 

China has a high average IQ. They're also very overpopulated. Try again.

 

 

 

I'm going to sterilize you for your lack of proficiency in spelling.

 

How do you like eugenics now?

I was referring to intelligent individuals in the western countries. Chinas city populations have high average IQ's but their government does not take IQ tests of their rural less intelligent populations. The true average intelligence of China would be much lower if they did. The vast majority of Chinese citizens are unintelligent living in shacks. The true rural impoverished China and the privileged city populations are very different. Also in Chinese schools they prepare students to take IQ tests beforehand, which throw off the results in their favor. Communist regimes such as China are well known for using propaganda to make their state seem better than it actually is. Also I am seriously tired of people claiming because I spelled one thing wrong I must be stupid. Get over it, I don't have the best grammar in the entire world, so what? Argue against my ideas not my vocabulary...

The intelligence of an organism does not give it any more right to live than, say, a tree.

Nothing has a "right" to live. You have no more right to live than a cockroach, does that mean you should kill yourself and let a hive of cockroaches consume your rotting corpse? Well that depends on your view of life. Do you value the existence of life more than its benefit to your life? I personally believe that intelligent people will ultimately benefit me and my future offspring far more than an intellectually inferior individual. According to statistics someone with low IQ is more likely to commit violent crime, if we allow the overpopulation of stupid people, statistically speaking there is a good possibility that somewhere down the line your offspring will be attacked, mugged, raped etc by the offspring of one of these stupid people. Conversely through the government advocating the production of higher IQ people, statistically one of them will probably invent some new technology that will benefit your offspring in some way directly or indirectly. Look at the bigger picture, in the long run Eugenics will pay off big time.

 

My sons and I have Aspergers. This means that we have difficulties with social interaction, we have a hard time with speech and grammar, we can be extremely clumsy (I'm always banging my knees / shins into something while my youngest son likes to swing his arms around usually knocking stuff over), and we tend towards repetitive patterns with a huge focus / attention to specific functions. This condition is thought to be genetic and can exhibit behaviour which is not always linked with someone who is smart / intelligent. Some people with Aspergers can seem to be completely weird and out of place in society.

 

My oldest son and I focus primarily on numbers. We don't really know why. We just love anything that has to do with numbers and math. He can tell me exactly how many road signs, bridges, or on / off ramps we have passed whether I wanted to know it or not. But, he is also only eight years old. The problem with this Eugenics, is that Aspergers can manifest any range of behaviours and interests and my sons and I probably would not exist today if Eugenics was enforced. I'm not sure what percentage of people with Aspergers develop a focus on numbers. But considering that we can be socially awkward, have a hard time with speech / grammar, and be clumsy at times, our genes would most likely be targeted along with people who suffer from Autism.

 

You have to realize that people who have genetic disorders are not entirely destructive to society. Throughout my life I have managed to solve very complex mathematical equations:

 

Continued Summations of [math]x^p[/math]:

 

I solved this equation when I was in the 11th grade in high school. The following is a generalized equation which produces the polynomials that predict the Sth summation of [math]x^p[/math] from 1 to [math]n[/math], where [math]p[/math] is any natural number not including zero:

 

[math]F(S,\, n,\, p)=\sum_{j_{1}=1}^n \sum_{j_{2}=1}^{j_{1}} ... \sum_{x=1}^{j_{S}} (x^p)=\sum_{j=0}^p \left((-1)^{j+p} \left(\sum_{k=0}^j \frac{k^p \, \left \langle -j \right \rangle_{j-k}}{(j-k)!}\right)\left(\frac{\left \langle n \right \rangle_{j+s}}{(j+s)!} \right)\right)[/math]

 

 

Newton's Interpolation Formula:

 

My Calculus teacher, Mrs. Gilje, introduced me to Dr. Eli Eliason at the University of Oklahoma after I showed her the above equation. After explaining the process I used to solve the problem and showing him the equation below, he informed me that the following equation was discovered by Newton and is called Newton's interpolation formula (note: I have expanded the formula to include recursively summing the sequence such that when [math]s=0[/math] we get the original sequence and when [math]s=1[/math] we get the first summation of the sequence and so on):

 

[math]F(x, \, s,\, n) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\left( \sum_{j=0}^{i}\left(f(j)\frac{(-1)^{j}\ i!}{j!\ (i-j)!}\right) \frac{(-1)^{s}}{(i+s)!} \prod_{k=1}^{i+s}\left(k-s-x\right)\right)[/math]

 

Daedalus' Exponential Interpolation:

 

I seen other patterns in the above equations and developed an exponential interpolation equation just four months after I discovered the equations above:

 

[math]F(x, \, p,\, n) = \prod_{i=0}^{n-1}\left( \prod_{j=0}^{i}\left(f(j)^{\frac{(-1)^{j}\, i!}{j!\, (i-j)!}}\right)^{ \frac{(-1)^{p}}{(i+p)!} \displaystyle \prod_{k=1}^{i+p}\left(k-p-x\right)}\right)[/math]

 

Where [math]x[/math] is the variable, [math]p[/math] is the recursion level of the product as explained above, and we multiply the outputs from [math]0[/math] to [math]n-1[/math]. We can start from any number by modifying [math]f(j)[/math] to include a starting index, [math]f(j+start)[/math].

 

I have solved many more equations, but whether or not these equations were previously known is not the point. I'm not a genius by any means. Aspergers actually gives me and my son my son and I a desire to work on numbers that can seem to be unnatural at times. I have literally sat at my desk for 36 hours straight trying to solve a math problem and pass out due to exhaustion. That isn't entirely the result of Aspergers as I also have a few other disorders lol. I consider us lucky to have a focus on numbers and not something like drawing with crayons. But just because we can be socially awkward, have a hard time with speech and grammar, and clumsy (all of which is a result of a genetic disorder, Aspergers), does not give you the right to sterilize me or to have denied my parents the right to have conceived me.

I never said I would sterilize people with aspergers. Possibly confine them to only breed with other people with aspergers. When I advocate the sterilization and abortion of mentally and phonically handicapped, I mean people who are a burden. For example people with Down Syndrome offer no benefits to humanity, they are completely dependent upon outside support and could not survive on their own. Therefore sterilization and abortion of people who have down syndrome is the best option for the collective group. People with aspergers do not harm anyone, they are usually self sufficient, and can be beneficial at times, their unique features should be preserved for the possible exploitation of their innate mental gifts.

 

@Eugenics: two points.

 

1) I congratulate you on sticking to your guns with zero support and major attacks from all directions. It shows commitment and zeal.

 

2) Your proposal is ignorant and should be abandoned. The apparent motivation is that you attribute your own lack of success to interference by the underclasses. Try working harder and with more respect for your fellows and you might make it.

 

I am passionate about the advancement of human kind. My own lack of success has nothing to do with my position, I feel as a whole, humanity would achieve much greater success in the progression of science and technology should we start valuing intelligence more than our emotions.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Eugenics