Since you've completely misinterpreted what we've been talking about, I doubt it's productive to keep discussing this topic with you.
No, this is just getting interesting. Let's take the off-topic discussion to new heights.
Just because someone is good at running doesn't mean they can beat you up in a fight or beat you in a game of chess, etc etc and vice versa. No one is good at everything, everyone has their own gifts which they are genetically superior to you in just as you have yours which you are genetically superior to them in. Just as some people are genetically good musicians and philosophers while some suck at it. Right?
No, since I started the thread my original idea was very simple. To gain a body builders physique is not a genetic inheritance. Then you lot began to jump into the hitlerian genetic superiority jibba jabba.
Genetic superiority is a quack notion with no science behind it.
Ouch. If you were not so convinced that you are right (and if you did not confound perfectly valid observations with nationalsocialism), I'd
generously concur that you are
mostly right. But, no, strictly speaking you are very wrong. If we ignore the problem how to define "superior" and just go by society's standards, you are wrong for instance. As unfortunately, there are people who are objectively superior to others. In how far is a child suffering from Patau, Edwards or Hutchinson Gilford superior to anyone in anything? Superior suffering and dying? Life
is unfair.
Perhaps you are correctly suggesting that certain genetic gifts involve trade-offs (e.g. marathon running vs sprinting) and that changes in highly optimisted biological systems often involve trade-offs, but you must know that some of those trade-offs have less of an impact on our life and are a "net benefit". Sure, E. coli is pretty damn succesful in its biological niche, but we're not necessarily striving to become little microorganisms (although, it's a very gifted bacterium I must say). Furthermore, you are ignoring that evolution per definition makes mistakes and is imperfect, some evolutionary processes lead to dead ends, think mitoSENS for instance: why didn't all mitochondrial genes move to the nucleus? Not because it is not benefical [or neutral at worst], but probably because it became impossible. Or what about random genetic drift...
Make no mistake, genetical superiority is very real and not just in those corner cases that I just alluded to (evolutionary mistakes, practical/"net benefits", deadly inherited diseases). In evolutionary terms one could say that "genetically inferior" specimes are simply less fit and die out, not that it really applies to humans at this very moment. But the "genetically inferior" E. colis are long dead.
However, when it comes to humans, I think it's also a matter of Gaussian distribution. As long as we're not talking attributes that are the opposite of eachother, nothing stops you from being lucky, e.g. several standard deviations "above" the rest (intelligence, life span, musicianship, athletics [power or endurance] -- surely a person without those attributes
might be "superior" in the context of a short-lived hunter & gatherer society, but not in our world).
Most people, but not all, are good at something. Not all peope are created equal & not all are good at something.
Kindly explain how a champion chess player is any less genetically endowed in their performance (relative to their profession) than a champion body builder..
Most probably a champion chess player could be highly intelligent, a great muscician and an elite marathon runner and successful supercentenarian all within one lifetime and based on his genetics. It's just not very likely statistically speaking. Is he "superior" to someone who's bad at chess, short lived, not-so-intelligent but a good bodybuilder? Well, yes, subjectively at least.
That's why I'm a proponent of human enhancement and a proponent of soft eugenics, which is probably one of the most misunderstood topics.
Edited by kismet, 11 August 2009 - 03:48 PM.
