46 replies to this topic

[siberia]

I wonder, what do members here think about helping evolution on it's way, so to speak.
Does the cause justify the means in this matter, or is it even desirable?

[Lazarus Long]

(enigma)
If dumber people are having more kids and IQ is going up then the average maximum genetic intellectual capacity of the society is going down whilst the average IQ is going up for cultural reasons. But if the average maximum genetic intellectual capacity of society continues to decline then eventually, inevitably, average IQ will decline also.

The basic assumption here asserts the fallacy clearly and it reflects a bias based on a stereotype.

There is no valid statistic to support the assumption that "dumber people" have more children. There are numerous studies that demonstrate a correlation between education level, socioeconomics, and religion with birth rate but no valid correlation exclusively with *intelligence*, or more importantly *solely on IQ*, has been demonstrated in a fundamentally unbiased manner. There is an attempt to do so in works like the "The Blank Slate" but it is impossible to remove the advantages of education, diet, economics (epigenetics) etc from the evaluation.

[Lazarus Long]

  (Siberia)
I wonder, what do members here think about helping evolution on it's way, so to speak.

Does the cause justify the means in this matter, or is it even desirable?

I think it is very fair to say that the majority of our members (certainly not all) are highly supportive of the idea of "helping evolution on it's way" but I think that you would find a far more contentious debate over the ends justifying the means or even a common agreement on what are the optimal means to achieve such goals.

There might even be a vigorous debate over what defines the optimal goals of self directed, or just *enhanced* evolution.

[siberia]

I agree that I have expressed myself indistinct, sorry. Being not too good at English at the same time isn’t a good combination.

What I really meant at the moment was: what are your thoughts about eugenics? Whether it's acceptable at all, if it is, which ways would be acceptable, according to you, and most important of all (because I’ve trouble answering it myself), what traits are desirable to keep, or to eliminate?

I chose the form in my previous post because it would also involve means that aren't so closely involved with the word eugenics, which most likely to my experience would result in many knee-jerk reflexes e.g. “the UN says that it’s wrong!”. I wasn’t taking into account a technical approach, like AI or direct technical enhancement of the human body, which I see as a very, or "the", desirable way to enhance evolution. This as I guessed that most members here think the same. I think that technical development can replace natural selection in the future, being a higher gear as Kurzweil(?) puts it. But what I wanted to see was if other members have other ideas about what creates a healthy evolution of the human species. Libertarianism for one. Does anyone claim that it would it be the optimal political system in a posthuman future?

[Aegist]

Eugenics is a pipedream, even if it was decided to be a good idea. The idea of controlling replication for the good of the human race implies that we all think in terms of 'what is good for the human race?' when the reality is "What is good for me?"

Humans, like all organisms, ultimately take care of themselves first. We take care of our society only insofar as it benefits us. So having our own reproductive rights controlled 'for the good of the society' would never be acceptable to us, or any other individuals.

Secondly, how long do you think a eugenics program could continue for? Assuming it was started by some particularly persuasive advocate, that person would die in a couple of generations anyway, is there going to be someone else to take his place and maintain the same promotion? There would need to be a continuous (completely unbroken) progression of controlling individuals who not only maintain the eugenics program, but also ensure its goals remain the same over the course of several HUNDRED human generations. Eugenics will achieve nothing in 50, 200 or 500 years. There will be no noticable change!

So why bother? Technology will advance far beyond our imagination within that time frame, and in the meantime the idea of expecting people to give up their individual rights for the promise of some potential future pay of for generations they will most likely never know...it is absurd.

[xanadu]

Asking why evolution hasn't made visual changes in your lifetime, is like asking why the the president of the USA hasn't changed in the last 10 minutes. it just doesn't happen that often...it is a slow (painfully slow) process. 3 or 4 generations of people will NOT create any evolutionary change, particularly when the population is as large as that of humans.

I just showed in the example of a crisis coming along how a population can change in only one generation and change dramaticly. What do you think would happen if humans were faced with a challenge that only the smartest 10% could survive? The next generation would all be much smarter than this one. Of course in reality the smart ones would save their families and the government would try to save everyone but the principle remains.

OK, how can a population change in just a few generations if the situation is a reward rather than a challenge to survive? We already know that dumber people seem to have larger families. Add into that equation something like afdc which is an american tradition in which poor people get a check for each kid they have. You see how it works? more kids = more money. The check is not large and smart people realise it's a losing proposition but poor and dumb people, many of them, don't intend to take really good care of the kids anyway so it's time to hit the sack, Mabel. You have poor, shiftless and mostly dumb people having 4 to 8 kids and the smart ones only have 2 or 3, do that for a few generations and I guarantee you will have a dumber next generation. It will consist of haves and have nots, much like we are already seeing. Keeping on this course is a recipe for disaster, much like Bush's policies in Iraq or our fiscal policies. But, that's getting off the subject a little bit. I'm getting like mitkat

[enigma]

There is no valid statistic to support the assumption that "dumber people" have more children. There are numerous studies that demonstrate a correlation between education level, socioeconomics, and religion with birth rate but no valid correlation exclusively with *intelligence*, or more importantly *solely on IQ*, has been demonstrated in a fundamentally unbiased manner. There is an attempt to do so in works like the "The Blank Slate" but it is impossible to remove the advantages of education, diet, economics (epigenetics) etc from the evaluation.

Fair enough, well I did say "if" however, if it is true that people in poorer socioeconomic circumstances are having more children then, if on average those people have a lower IQ potential, then one would think that it is true.

In saying dumber people I mean people with lower IQ's not that it is an absolute measure.

[mitkat]

Hey now..! You know it's one of my New Year's resolutions to quit hatin' like that.

[Aegist]

Asking why evolution hasn't made visual changes in your lifetime, is like asking why the the president of the USA hasn't changed in the last 10 minutes. it just doesn't happen that often...it is a slow (painfully slow) process. 3 or 4 generations of people will NOT create any evolutionary change, particularly when the population is as large as that of humans.

I just showed in the example of a crisis coming along how a population can change in only one generation and change dramaticly. What do you think would happen if humans were faced with a challenge that only the smartest 10% could survive? The next generation would all be much smarter than this one. Of course in reality the smart ones would save their families and the government would try to save everyone but the principle remains.

It is a truism that if you wipe out a huge proportion of the population on a selective basis that the population will be different. But it does take a very strong selective force (a virus is most likely, while a hitler-esque world wide racist domination is easier to visualise), and this sort of strong selective event (other than viruses, and bacterial infections) is not how evolution generally works.

OK, how can a population change in just a few generations if the situation is a reward rather than a challenge to survive? We already know that dumber people seem to have larger families. Add into that equation something like afdc which is an american tradition in which poor people get a check for each kid they have. You see how it works? more kids = more money. The check is not large and smart people realise it's a losing proposition but poor and dumb people, many of them, don't intend to take really good care of the kids anyway so it's time to hit the sack, Mabel. You have poor, shiftless and mostly dumb people having 4 to 8 kids and the smart ones only have 2 or 3, do that for a few generations and I guarantee you will have a dumber next generation. It will consist of haves and have nots, much like we are already seeing. Keeping on this course is a recipe for disaster, much like Bush's policies in Iraq or our fiscal policies. But, that's getting off the subject a little bit. I'm getting like mitkat

Firstly, low economic position does not mean they are genetically less intelligent. Nor does IQ. IQ can be trained up, and thus a genius lazy person who can't read will obviously do worse on an IQ test than a dumb nerd.

Secondly, in a world where everyone has equal chances of survival, simply massing a section of the population won't necessarily create an evolutionary pressure. The pressure will only come about when there is over population and shortness of resources. It seems we are just adding variety to our gene pool at the moment, no matter how you subjectively judge that variety, all variety is good for it gives us increased chances of surviving (as a species) the next big selective pressure, whatever that is.

[kylyssa]

None of you guys are even close to the right answer. Allow me to explain.

Women don't want to fcuk geeky smart guys. Most hot babes go for muscular bad boy types because they offer them a sense of protection. 

Intelligent women that are attracted to geeky smart guys don't put out much, in comparison to hot babes. The geeks are lucky to get any sex at all. Naturally you end up with a lot less smart children because of this.   [glasses]

OK, so I'm one of those intelligent women involved with not one but two geeky smart guys. The thing is, fcuking doesn't necessarily lead to reproduction anymore.

Failure rates for most birth control methods are mostly from improper use or non-compliance. A friend worked at a Planned Parenthood here in Michigan. She related a story of a young woman who had two unplanned pregnancies in the space of several years. The person was on birth control pills which have a failure rate around 1% if used properly. Upon questioning, the woman explained that she put them in her vagina every time before she had intercourse! Surely people who can read the product insert have a leg up (or two!) on those that can't or aren't bright enough to realize they should.

[xanadu]

Aegist, if the poor and dumb people reproduce rapidly then they will become a larger and larger percent of the population. This is obviously a downward pressure on general intelligence no matter how you try to redefine it. Black families, for example, tend to be very large in particular low class black families on welfare. This is not a statistic you will ever read in the paper, the media tries to hide information such as this but it's true none the less. If the lower class breeds like roaches, then they will outnumber the more intelligent class which they already do. They all have a vote so the politicians are not going to change anything. If you work then you are supporting not only yourself but also a family of moochers.

[Athanasios]

The good thing is that as technology and communication increases the influence of one intelligent person greatly.

"The majority of the ignorant is secured for all time, their tyranny however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency."

Did anyone ever think the lawyers/politicians were going to solve the world's problems?

In the end it is just a battle between the good smarties and the sociopaths.

Edited by cnorwood19, 11 January 2007 - 09:02 PM.

[kylyssa]

In the end it is just a battle between the good smarties and the sociopaths.

In evolution there is no "good" and no "bad" there is simply who or what is left.

[vortexentity]

If you work then you are supporting not only yourself but also a family of moochers.

I am not picking on you xanadu but this is a strange bit of linguistic behavior for a socialist like yourself. I thought you supported the very ideals that support this problem.

[Aegist]

"War does not determine who is right.
War determines who is left"

Who is left determines evolutionary progress....

hmmm...that was an irrelevent thought.

Anyway, I don't care to speculate too much on the break down of population growth of particular subclasses, or racial classes etc I really think that such subjective temporal thinking is uninformative and unhelpful. Akin to trying to judge the decisions of people 300 years ago by our current ethics, presuming to judge people today objectively is just impossible. You are making subjective judgements which very likely have no bearing on reality. particularly when you make sweeping class status assumptions and nominate said class as "smart" or 'dumb".

[Athanasios]

In evolution there is no "good" and no "bad" there is simply who or what is left.

The influence of a person is amplified by technology, and consistency drives the direction. Sociopaths are consistent enough. Hopefully it does not mean death to the human race due to a sociopath. I would subjectively label that as "bad". My comments were not about evolution, but about societal change via technology. I think we will hit make or break before evolution has much more say in the matter than it already has.

[xanadu]

I am not picking on you xanadu but this is a strange bit of linguistic behavior for a socialist like yourself. I thought you supported the very ideals that support this problem.

Socialist? Where on earth did you get the idea I was a socialist?

Anyway, I don't care to speculate too much on the break down of population growth of particular subclasses, or racial classes etc I really think that such subjective temporal thinking is uninformative and unhelpful.

That sounds like the ostrich theory of dealing with unpleasant facts. Just don't look at them. The underclass is growing and present policies are making sure of that.