Smarter People?

[dragonstar57]

would it be possible, if some incentive for higher iq individuals to have more children while dissuading lower iq individuals from having as many that we could create a selective pressure towards higher intelligence?

it seems like we should try to better the species and help future generations.

**edit "smarter people" the thread name was meant to be "Smarter People?"

so if a friendly mod happens to see this please change it.

Edited November 30, 2012 by dragonstar57

[timo]

I vaguely remember a "better people" program having been tried, already. They lost the war, and the whole concept doesn't have a very good reputation amongst civilized people since then.

[Arete]

would it be possible, if some incentive for higher iq individuals to have more children while dissuading lower iq individuals from having as many that we could create a selective pressure towards higher intelligence?

it seems like we should try to better the species and help future generations.

**edit "smarter people" the thread name was meant to be "Smarter People?"

so if a friendly mod happens to see this please change it.

 

What you're proposing is eugenics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

Which we have an extensive thread on:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62058-eugenics/

 

Apart from the ethical quagmire that eugenics poses, in a complex, multigenic, environmentally linked trait like "intelligence", there's a multitude of issues:

a) Defining intelligence - IQ is a poor measure, with inherent flaws. If intelligence is undefined or poorly defined, how do you decide who can breed and who can't?

b) Intellect is highly environmentally dependent. Your nutrition as a child, learning environment, etc etc etc all influence your intellect. How will you control for environmental factors when deciding who can breed and who can't?

c) The heritability of intellect itself is environmentally linked - that is, the environment you grow up in influences how much of your intellect is inherited. How will you control for that?

d) Because it's a multigenic trait, selective breeding is unlikely to produce reliable outcomes.

 

etc.

[Consistency]

IQ just means a person has read a lot and has an excellent memory of what they have read. How about we dissuade those who lack intellect to not have any children? Population numbers would plummet, especially those with higher education.

 

Or better yet, teach people not to make assumptions about anything. Just observe and make an hypothesis if you have the desire to.

[dragonstar57]

What you're proposing is eugenics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

Which we have an extensive thread on:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62058-eugenics/

 

Apart from the ethical quagmire that eugenics poses, in a complex, multigenic, environmentally linked trait like "intelligence", there's a multitude of issues:

a) Defining intelligence - IQ is a poor measure, with inherent flaws. If intelligence is undefined or poorly defined, how do you decide who can breed and who can't?

b) Intellect is highly environmentally dependent. Your nutrition as a child, learning environment, etc etc etc all influence your intellect. How will you control for environmental factors when deciding who can breed and who can't?

c) The heritability of intellect itself is environmentally linked - that is, the environment you grow up in influences how much of your intellect is inherited. How will you control for that?

d) Because it's a multigenic trait, selective breeding is unlikely to produce reliable outcomes.

 

etc.

to respond to the ethical problems you wouldn't have to prevent anyone from breeding just make it so certain people breed more than others which could be done without harming anyone or being overly oppressive.

ps im aware of the eugenics thread but the tone was set by someone suggesting far more harsh action than I and I wanted to have a thread free of suggestions of sterilizing anyone with a iq below 100

Edited December 1, 2012 by dragonstar57

[John Cuthber]

Why is it that people are happy ta accept that biodiversity is a good thing, but don't realise that this applies to us just as much as other species?

[dragonstar57]

Why is it that people are happy ta accept that biodiversity is a good thing, but don't realise that this applies to us just as much as other species?

I acknowledge that biodiversity is favorable I just think that we should try to encourage a trait that is obviously not currently being selected for. I'm not saying we should get rid of the stupid people rather lets try to get more smart people.

not to mention if the range stays the same would that not keep the same level of biodiversity?

ie if we took the entire bell curve and moved it up the diversity (range) doesn't go down.

Edited December 1, 2012 by dragonstar57

[Phi for All]

I acknowledge that biodiversity is favorable I just think that we should try to encourage a trait that is obviously not currently being selected for. I'm not saying we should get rid of the stupid people rather lets try to get more smart people.

not to mention if the range stays the same would that not keep the same level of biodiversity?

ie if we took the entire bell curve and moved it up the diversity (range) doesn't go down.

Beyond the biodiversity problem already mentioned, what version of "smart" are you talking about? There are plenty of people you might call "not smart" that could outthink you in many different scenarios.

 

Better to educate the people we currently have and leave evolution to itself. Of course, making education desirable to those people is part of the problem as well.

[dragonstar57]

Beyond the biodiversity problem already mentioned, what version of "smart" are you talking about? There are plenty of people you might call "not smart" that could outthink you in many different scenarios.

 

Better to educate the people we currently have and leave evolution to itself. Of course, making education desirable to those people is part of the problem as well.

the criteria are too complicated to discuss in a forum. anything standard (ex some form of testing.) I could say in a short post would prove to be woefully inadequate. however there are some things which would be nice to have in greater abundance ie mathematics critical thinking spatial reasoning etc.

I think education is great but perhaps we could extend our maximum abilities to?

Edited December 1, 2012 by dragonstar57

[JohnStu]

would it be possible, if some incentive for higher iq individuals to have more children while dissuading lower iq individuals from having as many that we could create a selective pressure towards higher intelligence?

it seems like we should try to better the species and help future generations.

**edit "smarter people" the thread name was meant to be "Smarter People?"

so if a friendly mod happens to see this please change it.

 

Are you saying the low IQ people in this country are being too relaxed? That I agree.

[John Cuthber]

Beyond the biodiversity problem already mentioned, what version of "smart" are you talking about? There are plenty of people you might call "not smart" that could outthink you in many different scenarios.

 

Better to educate the people we currently have and leave evolution to itself. Of course, making education desirable to those people is part of the problem as well.

Actually, that is the biodiversity problem (or at least part of it) The diversity of different sorts of intelligence is vital to the species.

 

"I think education is great but perhaps we could extend our maximum abilities to?"

To what?

Perhaps we should restrict the breeding of those people who don't know the difference between too and to, at least until they learn to respect the lives of others.

[Ringer]

So what you're wanting to do is select for an increase in average iq since it's not being selected for? *cough* Flynn Effect *cough*

[Phi for All]

the criteria are too complicated to discuss in a forum. anything standard (ex some form of testing.) I could say in a short post would prove to be woefully inadequate. however there are some things which would be nice to have in greater abundance ie mathematics critical thinking spatial reasoning etc.

I think education is great but perhaps we could extend our maximum abilities to?

If better education is made available worldwide, it would automatically take care of most of your concerns. It might also help further the extension of our maximum abilities that's already happening and has been since we discovered farming and animal husbandry. More well-educated people, more great minds to help solve problems. And it leaves our biodiversity intact.

 

Perhaps we should restrict the breeding of those people who don't know the difference between too and to, at least until they learn to respect the lives of others.

To and too is faux.

 

Actually, deux et tout sont faux.

[Consistency]

If better education is made available worldwide, it would automatically take care of most of your concerns. It might also help further the extension of our maximum abilities that's already happening and has been since we discovered farming and animal husbandry.

How about we stop creating problems in the first place?

 

We can start off by ending the barbaric animal farming.

 

Here is what I would like to see for the future.

 

1) Free the chickens and other birds which eat insects and place them on orchards, so then we don't have to use pesticides on fruit. Also expand the growth of fruit and slowly diminish grain production.

2) Expand the growth of nuts, stop roasting them and stop selling toxic omega 6 oils.

3) Free the herbivores and let them graze on the land.

4) Grow more raw edible leafy greens instead of wasting land growing broccoli and nutrition less vegetables like eggplant.

 

More well-educated people, more great minds to help solve problems. And it leaves our biodiversity intact.

 

Let me know when well-educated people start solving problems. I will be waiting.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Consistency

[John Cuthber]

How about we stop creating problems in the first place?

 

We can start off by ending the barbaric animal farming.

 

Here is what I would like to see for the future.

 

1) Free the chickens and other birds which eat insects and place them on orchards, so then we don't have to use pesticides on fruit. Also expand the growth of fruit and slowly diminish grain production.

2) Expand the growth of nuts, stop roasting them and stop selling toxic omega 6 oils.

3) Free the herbivores and let them graze on the land.

4) Grow more raw edible leafy greens instead of wasting land growing broccoli and nutrition less vegetables like eggplant.

 

 

 

Let me know when well-educated people start solving problems. I will be waiting.

LOL

[Consistency]

@John Cuthber

 

Not very polite. You can at least tell me what is so unrealistic about my post.

 

You don't believe chickens are very good at keeping insects at bay?

 

Would you rather use poison or bring in a cat(s) for a mouse infestation?

[Phi for All]

How about we stop creating problems in the first place?

We'll have to leave this for a less intelligent species. Part of having great intelligence is being capable of creating really big problems, but another part is being able to solve them.

 

I'll leave the rest of what you say alone, since it's not really pertinent to this discussion. I'd hate to hijack dragonstar57's thread.

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Let me know when well-educated people start solving problems. I will be waiting.

We might, but not in this thread. This thread is about a different topic, and this conversation needs to get back to the ORIGINAL topic, as described in the first post.
If you want to open another discussion about smart people and their contributions to society, feel free to start one of your own.

Do not derail the thread further by replying to this moderation note, please.

Get back on topic, guys!

[Arete]

to respond to the ethical problems you wouldn't have to prevent anyone from breeding just make it so certain people breed more than others which could be done without harming anyone or being overly oppressive.

ps im aware of the eugenics thread but the tone was set by someone suggesting far more harsh action than I and I wanted to have a thread free of suggestions of sterilizing anyone with a iq below 100

 

"We're only suggesting black people people ride at the back of the bus and drink from a different fountain, not lynching them, so there's no ethical concern"

 

The course of action you take once you've arbitrarily defined your undesirable human group is only one component of the ethical dilemma: there is also severe ethical concern in defining a group of humans as sub standard based on subjective criteria. Think about all the cases where this has been done in the past and try and find an example which not been abhorrent.

 

That, and as described at length in that other thread, it would violate basic principles of population genetics, and probably not result in appreciable phenotypic benefits, due to the complex nature of the trait and simplistic nature of the approach.

[Consistency]

Sorry!

 

Back on topic.

 

Since both intellect and intelligence are required to solve problems and be smarter. What about training people to develop their intellect?

 

This article sums it up pretty well... Intellect and intelligence