Control of human quality

[AtheistNational]

We notice today a tendency to oppose new biogenetic possibilities of influencing human quality. We even hear that man should not touch on nature's "secrets" or that it is inhuman to "tinker" with man's creative forces. Men have called for a moratorium on genetic engineering.

We must ask ourselves: What can be more humane than to decrease the number of births of those 20 million Americans who are born with diabetes, or the 12 million Americans (2.5% of births) born with genetic diseases?

The fear that genetic quality control will create a 'master race' is incredibly far-fetched. All one can hope for is to effect a decrease in human pain and suffering. Eugenics and genetic engineering are still far away from exercising a direct influence on detailed genetic pattern modification. The process of governmental interference is publicly controlled and the definition of the cases for interference will be worked out in a publicly controlled process. How the process of controlled health for the unborn will be handled naturally depends on the degree of democratic maturity.

Should not all parents whole-heartedly agree to be genetically screened for the sake of the community? Does not the community profit from the intelligent understanding of genetic disturbances and the possibility of avoiding the conception of disturbed children when the genetic pattern in prospective parents can be located? Does not the community who foots the bill for the education of children have the right to inquire about the quality status of the new additions to the community?

Here we have to formulate a guiding principle of the new ethics. It is less important for mankind to worry about those accidentally present than about those unborn. In other words, our main concern should be the future generation and the preservation of a good genetic stock than the care for those deformed, sick, or inferior creatures that are present.

Religion starts from the premise that man has no hand in creation and that the genetic roulette is out of his control. Religion therefore concerns itself with the accidentally present ones. Any interference with the process of human creation is considered immoral. As the Catholic church clings most tenaciously to this primitive dogma, the good will and love for mankind are confined to remedial actions once the process of procreation has taken its course. Questions concerning the number of humans or their quality are excluded from consideration as the genetic roulette is God's domain.

This antiquated ethic is on its way out - unfortunately, not because man has developed a higher ethic which protects future generations from the creation of a world of misery, but because the practical situation on earth categorically requires a solution to the human quantity problem and thus, inescaptable, to the human quality problem.

It is higher ethics to care for the perpetuation of our civilisation by the creation of a world of higher conscience in the genetic endowment of our children and grandchildren and to ensure a life of dignity for them. This does not diminish the importance of our love and care for the currently poor, sick, or inferior beings. It adds to the burden of intelligent man and goes much beyond the simple religious dogma and duty. The danger for man is great if he does not understand the signs of our time.

Current selective pressures favour those personalities which most people consider least desirable. As our medical progress has practically defeated natural selection for good health, allowing the unhealthy to reach reproductive age and multiply in excess, so modern civilisation sustains and favours mediocrity. As we pay janitors the salaries of university professors and as plumbers are much better renumerated than highly skilled specialists, our evolutionary pressure is directed against the better individual.

Our effort for "zero population growth" will have genetic effects. As the lower level of the population generally is less willing or able to control progeny, a shift towards the lower level and an increase in the number of those with the least socially desirable traits is the consequence. The results of this shift are already clearly visible in America in the increased number of criminals. Moreover, modern science and technology are cognitively demanding and a large proportion of citizens cannot contribute to the growth or maintenance of modern civilisation because of the limitations, both genetic and environmental, of their cognitive capacity. It is higher ethics to worry about the growing numner of people who cannot participate in a wide variety of opportunities for self-fulfillment offered by a modern technological society due to their cognitive limitations.

One does not see how the huge problems of an overcrowded planet can be solved in a rational manner. Who will enforce the quota system for the various races? On whose authority can the number of births in Third World countries be defined?

As we demand certain definite traits from astronauts to whom we trust a multi-million dollar spaceship, so we have to define the minimum qualifications of people on earth. It is higher ethics to concern oneself with future generations and to plan for their survival in dignity by a control of our genetic endowment and a population control in line with quality. In this field, one has to form a real United Nations plan, a world charter of survival without genetic deterrioration.

[Trout]

Lots of "crap" in there.

Care to make a few concise points or ask a few questions?

[AtheistNational]

I already did.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Eugenik, nein?

Curing diseases: great.
Quotas for "races": Intensely racist.

Overpopulation is better to be attacked via education. Have faith in humankind. Western Europeans are already losing population because they are educated in reproductive health. Education, freedom, democracy, they all work.

[Trout]

I already did.

Dumb it down for me then.

Hows about 2-3 sentences?

[AtheistNational]

Overpopulation is better to be attacked via education.
Individuals differ in their educability.

Western Europeans are already losing population because they are educated in reproductive health.
Population control must be in line with quality. It is an unfortunate fact that the birth rate in Europe is lowest for the higher intelligence groups (IQ > 100): generally below two children per family. Dull persons (IQ < 90) have an average number of four children per family. It is easy to calculate that differential fertility rates will lead to the numerical superiority of the low-IQ population within a few generations. A continuous growth along these lines will extinguish the high IQ group. Two mitigating factors are sill operative to slow down a complete genetic degradation. First, there is still a reasonable birth rate for the average intelligent segment of the population. And since the intelligence distribution is Gaussian, a certain percentage of these persons are born with a high IQ.

Over a long period of time, however, we are faced with the fact of the double birth rate of those with low IQ and thus a definite decrease in average intelligence. If one calculates how long it takes for the low IQ groups to equal and surpass in numbers the group with an IQ over 90, one finds a very small time interval of the birth rate differences.

According to statistics, the dull and semi-retarded segment of the population, which comprises 25 percent of the population, has an average of four children per family, while the higher IQ group has 2 or less children per family. According to the law of geometrical progress, after a few generations (three or four) the low IQ group will equal in numbers the former 75 percent group, so that a 50/50 ratio is established.

Quotas for "races": Intensely racist.
Unfortunately, the racial aspect immediately enters into the picture, since the mean value of geographic populations are all clearly ranked in respect of personality, general cognitive ability, power of abstract reasoning, logic, executive function, etc.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Overpopulation is better to be attacked via education.
Individuals differ in their educability.


Educability is resolved via education. Education is not only learning but learning to learn. Ask an educator.



Quotas for "races": Intensely racist.
Unfortunately, the racial aspect immediately enters into the picture, since the mean value of geographic populations are all clearly ranked in respect of personality, general cognitive ability, power of abstract reasoning, logic, executive function, etc.

I thought so. *Intensely* racist.

[AtheistNational]

Educability is resolved via education.
The gifts of capacity are not equally distributed. Bad surroundings can certainly spoil gifted children; but good surroundings cannot turn dull children into gifted.

Education is not only learning but learning to learn.
'Learning to learn' is a function of executive capacity (roughly, 'will-power', self-regulation, &c.), which is strongly influenced by genetics.

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2008/05/99_genetic_individual_differen.php

"The results from this approach are jaw-dropping: variance shared among each variety of executive function [...] is nearly perfectly heritable: the contribution [...] is 99%."

In other words, will-power is 99% genetic.

I thought so. *Intensely* racist.
Why do you disagree?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Educability is resolved via education.
The gifts of capacity are not equally distributed. Bad surroundings can certainly spoil gifted children; but good surroundings cannot turn dull children into gifted.


'Learning to learn' is a function of executive capacity (roughly, 'will-power', self-regulation, &c.), which is strongly influenced by genetics.

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2008/05/99_genetic_individual_differen.php

"The results from this approach are jaw-dropping: variance shared among each variety of executive function [...] is nearly perfectly heritable: the contribution [...] is 99%."

In other words, will-power is 99% genetic.

I thought so. *Intensely* racist.
Why do you disagree?

Because of epistemology. How do YOU know what race is smartest (oh no, I'm starting THIS sort of discussion http://www.overthegardengate.net/forums/chat/images/puke.gif !)? For thousands of years, the dark-skinned people of Egypt were at the height of the most advanced civilization, while those living in northern Europe were barbarians. It took them thousands of years of contact with the mediterranean peoples to become advanced, which is very recent, historically speaking. On the other hand, the "race" most consistently advanced of all humanity throughout all of history have been the Chinese. They haven't invented much for hundreds of years and now they're barely picking up (again). Depending on the era, inventiveness, organization, creativity, etc, differ. The state of culture (i.e. education) makes the biggest difference. Negros in America become inventors: Garrett Morgan, G.W. Carver, Lewis Latimer, Otis Boykin, Judy W. Reed, and others. If they hadn't been kidnapped from one culture to another, they would have not achieved what they did. Magic Johnson, Michael Jackson, Bob Marley, and many others would have not done what they did had they been born and raised in Africa. Give them a chance to learn and they will. Greeks today: a sad shame for their ancient counterparts: nearly no philosophical scientific or notable aritistic acheivements, but look at the expatriates like Vangelis and others have achieved.

[xrey]

...
We must ask ourselves: What can be more humane than to decrease the number of births of those 20 million Americans who are born with diabetes, or the 12 million Americans (2.5% of births) born with genetic diseases?
...
The number of diabetes cases exploded after we switched our diet to high-fructose corn syrup. There is no reason to eliminate genetic predispositions to situations of our own making. Reducing genetic diversity is foolish because environmental factors change over time.
...
Should not all parents whole-heartedly agree to be genetically screened for the sake of the community? ...
How do you think you would stack up? You might be surprised.

[s-o-i-d-p]

but with advanced genetic engineering how could you prevent the likelihood of abuse?

If somebody wanted to create a super race, how would you stop them?

[premjan]

The gifts of capacity are not equally distributed. Bad surroundings can certainly spoil gifted children; but good surroundings cannot turn dull children into gifted.
Why don't you quote your personal qualifications to pontificate about the lack of intelligence in others? What great intelligence do you possess and how has it enabled you to claw out of the clutches of circumstances, against all odds etc.

[AtheistNational]

How do YOU know what race is smartest?
I believe that the race IQ gap is the result of genetic factors for the following, among other, reasons:

1.) Blacks raised from infancy in educated white middle class families still show a 15 point IQ deficit relative to whites and Asians raised in the same environment.

2.) The race IQ gap has changed very little in the eight decades since it was first observed.

3.) Blacks, on average, have smaller brains than whites. IQ is positively correlated with brain size (r = 0.44).

4.) The below average IQ of blacks is a worldwide phenemenon. The low IQ score obtained by blacks does not occur in just one school, one city, one state, or one country. It occurs globally. The phenemon therefore requires an explanation that holds true in all countries, not one that depends on the history of American blacks.

5.) Even the best planned and most lavishly funded 'early intervention' projects, which included extensive cognitive enrichment activities, have failed to bring the average IQs of adult blacks up to, or even close to, the white level. These programs include the Abecedarian Project, the Milwaukee Project, and various 'Head Start' programs administered locally.

6.) Most of sub-Saharan Africa was extremely primitive before it came into contact with the West two centuries ago, and remains backward today compared with third-world countries on other continents.

7.) The relative performance of blacks on different intelligence tests does not depend on the cultural content of the tests. In fact, blacks score highest on precisely those test items which have the highest cultural content (word analogies, etc) and lowest on culturally-reduced test items (matrices, digit span tests, reaction time tests, etc). If cultural deprivation were the cause of black failure, then blacks would score lowest on tests with high cultural content.

8.) While environmental determinists often attack the evidence that the black-white IQ gap is at least partly genetic, they rarely off any direct evidence of the alleged equality of black and white native intelligence. If the claim is so obviously correct, it should be easy to assemble large amounts of evidence in support of it.

9.) None of the environmental theories which have been suggested adequately explain the race IQ gap. For instance, the argument that the black-white IQ gap is caused by poverty is contradicted by the fact that blacks who earn more than $70,000 per year obtain lower IQ scores than whites who earn less than $20,000 per year year.

10.) Blacks evolved in a savannah environment with a climate and biome resembling modern-day Kenya. Whites and Asians evolved in a northern environment favouring high intelligence.

All of this is mainstream science. The majority of scientists in the fields of behavioural genetics, psychometrics, and educational psychology believe that the race IQ gap is at least partly genetic in origin.

For thousands of years, the dark-skinned people of Egypt were at the height of the most advanced civilization,
The emphasis placed on skin colour and hair type is misplaced. Zoologists lay greater emphasis upon structural or morphological features than mere skin pigmentation. In this regard the ancient Egyptians more closely resembled other Caucasoid peoples (Europeans, Middle Easterners, etc) than any other human population.

Relying on crania, the anthropologist Loring Brace argues that the ancient Egyptians were more similar (cranium-wise) to Germans or Danes than to Nubians, Somalis, or Ethiopians.

"It is obvious that both the predynastic and late dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than they are to any of the other major regional clusters in the world," says Brace.
http://way.net/dissonance/sundiata.html

Moreover, many statues of ancient Egyptians are painted in various ways, and the eyes are often depicted as blue. A large proportion of the mummies that have survived into the 21st century are red haired. The mummy King Tutankhamun's wife has auburn hair. A mummy with red hair and beard was found in the pyramid at Saqara. The mummy of Pharaoh Thothmes II has chestnut-coloured hair.

We can take note of the Egyptian nobleman Yuya, who lived about 1400 B.C. He is said to have blond hair, and he had a typically Caucasian physiognomy:

View image here (http://euler.slu.edu/Dept/Faculty/bart/egyptimage/32_tuyu.jpg)

Another notable mummy is that of Pharaoh Hatshepsut:

View image here (http://reckon.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/hatshepsut.jpg)

Another one is Seti I:

View image here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Pharoah_Seti_I_-_His_mummy_-_by_Emil_Brugsch_(1842-1930).jpg)
And here (http://www.narmer.pl/ima_mum/seti1_1.jpg).

while those living in northern Europe were barbarians. It took them thousands of years of contact with the mediterranean peoples to become advanced, which is very recent, historically speaking.
The preconditions for the development of human civilisation were:

1.) Sufficient human intelligence.
2.) Suitable climate.
3.) The availability of suitable crops (and domesticable animals).

There was a large zone in high northern latitudes in which the mean intelligence of the inhabitants was high enough for them to invent agriculture, had the climate been suitable. However, in no part of that zone was the climate sufficiently benign to enable agriculture and thus civilisation to originate. At the same time, there was a large tropical zone (e.g. black Africa) that did enjoy the necessary combination of adequate rainful and a long, warm growing seasons. However, there were no human groups within that tropical zone with a high enough intelligence for that development to take place.

By combining the requirements of sufficient intelligence and suitable climate we can understand why the Neolithic Revolution did not commence in northern latitudes, where the average intelligence was highest, but the climate unsuitable; and why it did not occur in black Africa, where the climate was suitable, but the average intelligence was lowest.

By 10,000 years ago, the two zones (the zone with high average intelligence, and the zone with a benign climate) began to overlap. Among the early regions of overlap were:

1.) The Middle East (the Fertile Crescent)
2.) Southern China.
3.) Mesoamerica
4.) Southern Europe (Greece, Italy, and Spain)
5.) The Southern part of the United States
6.) South America (in particular, the Andean region)
7.) The New Guinea highlands.

On the other hand, the "race" most consistently advanced of all humanity throughout all of history have been the Chinese.
1.) See above. The Chinese are a high intelligent population (IQ = 103). The history of China only confirms the fact that a precondition for the development of civilisation is high intelligence.
2.) Between 600 and 1300 A.D., China was clearly more prosperous than the West. Because of this, you have concluded that China was usually more advanced than the West. However, this assertion is incorrect. In the first place, even during that period, China was far behind the West in mathematics and science. In the second place, the interval 600-1300 A.D. was atypical. For most of recorded history - and for the most of the last 10,000 years - China has been well behind the Western world in both technology and the arts. The relative backwardness of China is apparent in such important fields as agriculture, writing, astronomy, mathematics, metalworking, and cloth making. Europeans created modern science; the Chinese did not. There were no Chinese equivalents to Copernicus or Newton. Nor were there any Chinese parellels to Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven; nor to Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci; nor to Columbus or Magellan; nor to Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides; nor to Pythagoras, Aristotle, Euclide, or Ptolemy.

The state of culture (i.e. education) makes the biggest difference.
The state of culture cannot eliminate genetic differences.

Negros in America become inventors:
This is not relevant. The existence of outstanding individuals has no bearing on the average intelligence of a population.

Garrett Morgan,
Gerrett Morgan did not invent the gas mask in 1914. The gas mask was invented by the Scottish chemist John Stenhouse in 1854, as well as the physicist John Tyndall in the 1870s. See The Invention of the Gas Mask. (http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html)

G.W. Carver,
Barry Mackintosh, who served as bureau historian for the National Park Service, has demonstrated the following:
"Most of Carver's peanut and sweet potato creations were either unoriginal, impractical, or of uncertain effectiveness. No product born in his laboratory was widely adopted.
"The boom years for Southern peanut production came prior to, and not as a result of, Carver's promotion of the crop.
"Carver's work to improve regional farming practices was not of pioneering scientific importance and had little demonstrable impact."
To see how Carver gained his questionable reputation, read Mackintosh's excellent article George Washington Carver: The Making of a Myth. (http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=256246&messageid=1088896552&lp=1088896552)

Lewis Latimer,
Lewis Latimer invented the carbon filament in 1881 or 1882? No.

"English chemist/physicist Joseph Swan experimented with a carbon-filament incandescent light all the way back in 1860, and by 1878 had developed a better design which he patented in Britain. On the other side of the Atlantic, Thomas Edison developed a successful carbon-filament bulb, receiving a patent for it (#223898) in January 1880, before Lewis Latimer did any work in electric lighting. From 1880 onward, countless patents were issued for innovations in filament design and manufacture (Edison had over 50 of them). Neither of Latimer's two filament-related patents in 1881 and 1882 were among the most important innovations, nor did they make the light bulb last longer, nor is there reason to believe they were adopted outside Hiram Maxim's company where Latimer worked at the time. (He was not hired by Edison's company until 1884, primarily as a draftsman and an expert witness in patent litigations).

"Latimer also did not come up with the first screw socket for the light bulb or the first book on electric lighting."
www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/

Greeks today: a sad shame for their ancient counterparts:
Studies of the busts, hermae, and portraits purporting to represent ancient Greek individuals suggest that today's Greeks are ethnically different from their ancient counterparts. Also, the demonstrated low average intelligence of today's Greeks may be the result of recent dysgenic trends in fertility.

[xrey]

So, AtheistNational, are you a member of the race with the statistically highest IQ? If not, can you justify your own reproduction?

[premjan]

What proposals are you making about control of human quality and how do you propose to implement those proposals?

[AtheistNational]

Reducing genetic diversity is foolish
Only minor changes in the gene pool would be made. Genetic diversity would not be reduced.

Should not all parents whole-heartedly agree to be genetically screened for the sake of the community? ...
How do you think you would stack up? You might be surprised.
Parental groups falling below the required scale factors should consent to be sterilised on a voluntary basis after being instructed that their offspring would range within the classes defined as either sick or unable to lead a reasonable existence. In case of refusal, a special judgment should be made by a group of geneticists and educational specialists. If this group of specialists favours sterilisation by a simple majority vote, sterilisation should be enforced.

The loss to society on account of the increasing number of the unfit (i.e. persons incapable of adapting to a complex, technological, information-intensive society) and those children born to parents with predictable genetic defects is staggering. The cost of persons with predictable genetic diseases alone has already increased well beyond the defence budget of the U.S.

For the millions of criminals in our prisons (where the average IQ is 70), society continuously pays billions of dollars per year. In addition, we have to foot the bill for the hundreds of thousands of mentally retarded, sick, and inferior beings, born to defective parents.

I have not even counted the vast number of those creatures at the fringes of the IQ level needed for a useful life, born in slum environments with statistically poor heredity, condemned at birth to genetic slavery and permanent welfare dependency.

[premjan]

I don't think people even if retarded are going to voluntarily submit to sterilization. You will have to force them, and do not expect people to stand idly by while this is done, at least not forever. If procreating less is seen as collectively important and the ground rules are not made different for different people, perhaps people will voluntarily reduce their reproduction. But I do not expect any people to cease it except those that would have anyway. Technology or eugenic mate selection would be better solutions. Even there, only technology doesn't involve coercing human choice, so it is the only one which is likely to succeed in the long run.

[AtheistNational]

So, AtheistNational, are you a member of the race with the statistically highest IQ? If not, can you justify your own reproduction?
I have never suggested that all persons who belong to races of high average intelligence should reproduce. In particular, mentally retarded persons, including those belonging to races with statistically high intelligence, are not fit to reproduce or to raise children.

[premjan]

Let's look at this the other way around: if we were to place certain minimum eugenic standards on any proposed offspring, that would be more uniform a standard. But it would be hard to police, it would be hard to implement because there are a lot of variables which are hard to control, and it would be hard to be objective about it.

[AtheistNational]

I don't think people even if retarded are going to voluntarily submit to sterilization.
Parental groups falling below the required standards would consent to be sterilised on a voluntary basis, depending on the best scientific estimates of hereditary factors in such disadvantages as feeblemindedness, criminality, and genetic diseases. At a bonus rate of $1,000 for each point below 100 IQ, $30,000 put in trust for a 70 IQ moron potentially capable of producing 20 children might return $250,000 to tax payers in reduced costs of mental retardation care. This arrangement would make sterilisation voluntary. In case of refusal, sterilisation can be enforced by a team of specialists by a simple majority vote based on the severity of the case in question.

This voluntary sterilisation bonus plan would reduce the costs to the taxpaying citizens by decreasing the social welfare spending required to support the underclasses. These costs mount every generation as a result of the excessive fertility of the semi-retarded, the crime-prone, and the disease-ridden.

Technology or eugenic mate selection would be better solutions.
No. Eugenic mate selection among well educated people is already widespread as a result of women's emancipation. But intelligent people are better at family planning and practice birth control with greater efficacy. They also reproduce later in life (late 20s and 30s), while the unintelligent begin reproducing in their teens and early 20s. As a result, the intelligent have an average of only 1 children per family, whilst the dull and semi-retarded have 3 or 4 children on average. Dull persons lack the intelligence, willingness, and foresight to enage in family planning and effective birth control.

[premjan]

Eugenic mate selection doesn't have to affect the fertility of dull and semi-retarded persons. It will automatically raise the IQ of their offspring much above their own, without having any effect on fertility.

We'll have to wait and see whether people voluntarily submit to sterilization in exchange for a simple monetary incentive. My gut feeling is it will require more than that. Some sort of comperehensive societal policy on eugenics might be a better approach.

[figuer]

The fear that genetic quality control will create a 'master race' is incredibly far-fetched. So?? Why shouldn't a master race be created?

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think people even if retarded are going to voluntarily submit to sterilization. You will have to force them, and do not expect people to stand idly by while this is done, at least not forever. If procreating less is seen as collectively important and the ground rules are not made different for different people, perhaps people will voluntarily reduce their reproduction. But I do not expect any people to cease it except those that would have anyway. Technology or eugenic mate selection would be better solutions. Even there, only technology doesn't involve coercing human choice, so it is the only one which is likely to succeed in the long run.

Why don't you just trick them in to sterilization? If they fall for it, then they were too stupid to be allowed to reproduce.

Problem solved.

[premjan]

I don't want to trick people into it.

[AtheistNational]

We'll have to wait and see whether people voluntarily submit to sterilization in exchange for a simple monetary incentive. My gut feeling is it will require more than that. Some sort of comperehensive societal policy on eugenics might be a better approach.
Criminals have been chemically castrated in exchange for reduced prison sentences. Dull mothers often have children with multiple boyfriends just so that they can receive more welfare checks; the children born to such mothers are usually abused and neglected, born in slum environments and condemned to genetic slavery by an unfair shake from a badly-loaded parental genetic dice cup. Often Negro and American Indian children, they are the true victims of dysgenic fertility trends. Parents who value their welfare checks more than their own children would gladly accept $10,000 in exchange for humane and voluntary sterilisation.

Eugenic mate selection doesn't have to affect the fertility of dull and semi-retarded persons.
So long as he low-IQ population continues to reproduce in excess, while the intelligent have fewer than 2 children per family, the average intelligence of the population will decrease, even if the high-IQ population practices assortive mating (which they already do). The below-90 IQ population, which comprises 25 percent of white population, has an average of four children per family, whereas the above-90 IQ population has 2 or less children per family. After three of four generations, the below-90 IQ group will equal in numbers the former 75 percent group, regardless of assorative mate selection.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

The emphasis placed on skin colour and hair type is misplaced


Very interesting post of yours. But you didn't get my point. I mentioned the Egyptians and the Chinese versus the northern Europeans, to make the point that its' not all in your genes. Culture is more important. The northerners, for all their cc's, didn't pick up until recently. It took them very long.

Eugenics is odious. It creates suffering. Plus it isn't crucial. Your cc-theory would make women dorks (and don't tell me you believe that!).

Trash the intelligence tests! We're back to the 19th century skull measurers!

[AtheistNational]

I mentioned the Egyptians and the Chinese versus the northern Europeans, to make the point that its' not all in your genes.
I never claimed that it is "all in our genes". The ancient Egyptians and the Chinese were both fit populations of above average intelligence. They also lived in an environment capable of supporting agriculture.

Culture is more important.
Culture cannot be separated from biology. In order for a culture to be sustained, the individuals must learn the culture. If the culture is very advanced, the people who bear the culture must be correspondingly advanced in brain development.

The northerners, for all their cc's, didn't pick up until recently. It took them very long.
As I explanied, the preconditions for the development of human civilisation were (a) sufficient human intelligence, (b) suitable climate, and (c) the availability of suitable crops. Civilisation only began to develop when regions with (a) began to overlap with regions with (b) and (c). Africa always had (b) and (c) but lacked (a). Northern Europe had (a) but lacked (b) and (c). The Middle East was one of the first regions where all the preconditions for civilisation were satisified.

Eugenics is odious.
How?

It creates suffering.
Eugenics reduces pain and suffering.

Your cc-theory would make women dorks.
No it wouldn't. Brain size is only one factor in human intelligence. The three main factors are:

1.) Brain size.
2.) Details of brain chemistry
3.) Structure of the brain

By the way, men do have slightly higher average IQs than women (about 4 IQ points).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405056&in_page_id=1770

Trash the intelligence tests! We're back to the 19th century skull measurers!
One study found a correlation of 0.44 bettween brain size measured by MRI and intelligence (Thomson, Cannon, Narr, et al., 2001). Vernon (2000) found a correlation of 0.40; when corrected for measurement error ("correction for attenuation"), this becomes 0.44.

The relationship between race differences in brain size and IQ is relatively strong:

East Asians: brain size is 1416cc, IQ is 105
Europeans: brain size is 1369cc, IQ is 100
Pacific Islanders: brain size is 1317cc, IQ 85
North Africans: brain size is 1293cc, IQ is 84
Black Africans: brain size is 1280cc, IQ is 67
Australian aborigines: 1225cc, IQ is 62

(Smith and Beals, 1990)

[jayh]

The emphasis placed on skin colour and hair type is misplaced


Very interesting post of yours. But you didn't get my point. I mentioned the Egyptians and the Chinese versus the northern Europeans, to make the point that its' not all in your genes. Culture is more important. The northerners, for all their cc's, didn't pick up until recently. It took them very long.

Eugenics is odious. It creates suffering. Plus it isn't crucial. Your cc-theory would make women dorks (and don't tell me you believe that!).

Trash the intelligence tests! We're back to the 19th century skull measurers!

I do not at all support A-N in his unscientific racist screeds, but at the same time, some blanket statements made here are themselves innaccurate.

IQ and educability are strongly genetic. and research on students who had an IQ boost due to intense early educational intervention have had this 'advantage' disappear by their teenage years. Additionally the IQ of adopted children is closely tied to their biological parents, while their non-adopted siblings IQ is strongly correlate to theirs.

This having been said, however, high IQ does NOT follow racial lines though there is some evidence that certain genetic pools (not entire races) have a different distribution than others. And additionally IQ does NOT have a correlation with other critical human attributes of honesty, morality or humand decency. To judge people only by their IQ would be a huge mistake.

We all practice a form of 'eugenics' when we select a mate. Consciously and unconsciously we are looking for good genes, good characteristics that might pass into our offspring. This is normal, this is nature in action. At the same time, when government gets involved, with its arbitrary and capricious definitions of what characteristics are desicrable than hideous distortions of human rights occur. That is where A-N's ideas get really really ugly.

[premjan]

I want to know exactly how much the human gene pool is deteriorating before we try to institute any eugenics. Also, any eugenics would have to be democratically instituted uniformly at a societal level.

[Deleet]

That was some pretty interesting posts, AN. But many of the claims are lacking sources, can you cite them?
Some research has shown that male's IQ are slightly higher than women's. There has also been shown a negative correlation between IQ and religion.(1) We also know that women are much more religious than men (19 per cent points in Denmark).(2) Interestingly enough, women do much better in schools in Denmark, there are more women in the school system at all levels except Ph.Ds, but they are catching up.(3)

1. http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
2. Gudstro i Danmark 2005 , http://gudstro.dk/
3. The Danish ministry of education, http://uvm.dk/

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Very interesting post of yours. But you didn't get my point. I mentioned the Egyptians and the Chinese versus the northern Europeans, to make the point that its' not all in your genes. Culture is more important. The northerners, for all their cc's, didn't pick up until recently. It took them very long.

Eugenics is odious. It creates suffering. Plus it isn't crucial. Your cc-theory would make women dorks (and don't tell me you believe that!).

Trash the intelligence tests! We're back to the 19th century skull measurers!

I do not at all support A-N in his unscientific racist screeds, but at the same time, some blanket statements made here are themselves innaccurate.

IQ and educability are strongly genetic. and research on students who had an IQ boost due to intense early educational intervention have had this 'advantage' disappear by their teenage years. Additionally the IQ of adopted children is closely tied to their biological parents, while their non-adopted siblings IQ is strongly correlate to theirs.



I've never denied that. What I have said is that it isn't a crucial factor. Education is, because no matter how you and I compare in IQ or brain cc's or whatever, it's our skills that matter, and it depends more on upbringing, education, etc, than anything else.


We all practice a form of 'eugenics' when we select a mate. Consciously and unconsciously we are looking for good genes, good characteristics that might pass into our offspring. This is normal, this is nature in action. At the same time, when government gets involved, with its arbitrary and capricious definitions of what characteristics are desicrable than hideous distortions of human rights occur. That is where A-N's ideas get really really ugly.

Most mate selection is cultural. How is it possible that Spaniards could mate with negroes but white Americans to this very day, find such a selection unpalatable?


This having been said, however, high IQ does NOT follow racial lines though there is some evidence that certain genetic pools (not entire races) have a different distribution than others. And additionally IQ does NOT have a correlation with other critical human attributes of honesty, morality or humand decency. To judge people only by their IQ would be a huge mistake.


One of many problems. For example, genes work together. In any case, this all makes the eugenetic suggestion in the OP unwarranted and socially undesirable. I suspect the best thing we can do is keep on mixing and mingling. Let every individual show what they're made of and succeed accordingly, just like we do today.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

3. The Danish ministry of education, http://uvm.dk/

Ahem... The English-language version: http://pub.uvm.dk/2008/facts/

[premjan]

One very important point is that genetics starts to be the operative factor when environmental factors are cancelled out. So in order to get started on eugenics, it is better that we should at first even out the imbalances of environmental endowment and create a level playing field. Then the influence of genetics will be hard to deny.

[AtheistNational]

I do not at all support A-N in his unscientific racist screeds,
Whether you agree with my ideas or not, it is inaccurate to call them unscientific. You must admit that yours is a minority position in the scientific community.

1.) 1,020 scientists within these fields of psychology, sociology, cognitive science, education, and genetics were surveyed and it was found that 53% of them thought that the black-white gap was partially genetic, and only 17% thought that it was entirely environmental. See here for further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SnydermanandRothman_(study)

2.) A statement by Linda Gottfriedson (published in Intelligence in 1997), which advocated a genetic explanation for the black-white IQ gap, was signed by 52 internationally renowned experts in the fields of behavioural genetics, psychometrics, and educational psychology.

3.) A survey of eastern European anthropologists found that 75 percent of them agree with the statement: "there are biological races within the species Homo sapiens." (Kaszycka, 2003).

4.) A survey of American anthropologists found that 69 percent of them accepted the concept of biological race (Leiberman and Reynolds, 1996).

This having been said, however, high IQ does NOT follow racial lines
Yes, it does. This has already been discussed.

And additionally IQ does NOT have a correlation with other critical human attributes of honesty, morality or humand decency.
Incorrect.

Positive correlates of IQ:

Achievement motivation
Altruism
Analytic style
Aptitudes, cognitive abilities, 'abstractness of' integrative complexity
Artistic preferences and abilities
Craftwork
Creativity; fluency
Educational attainment
Eminence, genius
Emotional sensetivity
Extra-curricular attainments
Field-independence
Health, fitness, longevity
Humor, sense of
Income
Interests, depth and breadth of
Involvement in school activities
Leadership
Linguistic abilities (including spelling)
Logical abilities
Marital partner, choice of
Media preferences
Memory
Migration (voluntary)
Military rank
Moral reasoning and development
Musical preferences and abilities
Myopia
Occupational Status
Occupational success
Perceptual abilities
Piaget-type abilities
Practical knowledge
Psychotherapy, response to
Reading ability
Regional differences
Social skills
Socioeconomic status of origin
Sports participation at university
Supermarket shopping ability
Talking speed
Values and attainments

Negative Correlates of IQ

Accident proneness
Acquiescence
Aging
Alcoholism
Crime
Delinquency
Dogmatism
Falsification ('Lie' scores)
Hysteria (versus other neuroses)
Impulsivity
Infant mortality
Psychoticism
Reaction times
Smoking
Truancy

To judge people only by their IQ would be a huge mistake.
No one suggested anything of the sort.

At the same time, when government gets involved, with its arbitrary and capricious definitions of what characteristics are desicrable than hideous distortions of human rights occur.
There is already a consensus about what fundamental traits we value. This consensus is evident in governmental expenditures on education (intelligence is preferable to stupidity), hospitals (health is preferable to sickness), criminal law enforcement (order is preferable to chaos), etc.

We are already trying to change people, using social engineering in an ineffective attempt to make people smart, law-abiding, and healthy. The community has already 'decided' what traits are to be valued, and the government enforces these values. But why not do something that would actually work?

Procreation is not a human right. In pregnancy, a woman is the carrier of the next generation and the community at large shoulders a great deal of responsibility and expenses for her future child. She is no longer free to do what she pleases because the child, strictly speaking, is not her property. She expects that the community will take care of her child and the community, in return, expects her child to become a useful member of it.

This makes child-bearing a proecss whereby the mother is in close interchange with the community and also is under some obligation to give the community a member worth educating and full of promises for the future.

The child's right must not be expressed by the simple notion of its existence, of breathing and eating, but by the definition of the right to a full life. Without good health and a sufficient genetic set-up for good intelligence and motivation, the child's right is violated from the start and it would have been better for it not to have been born at all.

Our compassion should be for the unborn and their sufferings if they are either not equipped to understand the demands of a complex life or not sufficiently cared for. It is far more important to love the unborn and see to it that everything is done to correctly prepare their future by a control of their properties and by an assurance that they will be desired and cared for.

The process of governmental interference is publicly controlled and the definition of the cases for interference will be worked out in a publicly controlled process. How the process of controlled health for the unborn will be handled naturally depends on the degree of democratic maturity.

[AtheistNational]

One very important point is that genetics starts to be the operative factor when environmental factors are cancelled out. So in order to get started on eugenics, it is better that we should at first even out the imbalances of environmental endowment and create a level playing field. Then the influence of genetics will be hard to deny.
Environments are shaped in a direction canalised by an individual's underlying genotype in a process called 'niche building'. People with different genetic predispositions shape different environments for themselves. The gifted child, more receptive to intellectual stimulation, creates a different environment for himself than the dull child. Intelligent parents provide their children with the double advantage of transmitting favourable genes to their children and providing them with a favourable environment. The same principle operates on groups. Thus, in order to improve environmental conditions, you must improve people's heredity. Eugenics must precede euthenics.

[Sho 'Nuff]

The emphasis placed on skin colour and hair type is misplaced


Very interesting post of yours. But you didn't get my point. I mentioned the Egyptians and the Chinese versus the northern Europeans, to make the point that its' not all in your genes. Culture is more important. The northerners, for all their cc's, didn't pick up until recently. It took them very long.

Eugenics is odious. It creates suffering. Plus it isn't crucial. Your cc-theory would make women dorks (and don't tell me you believe that!).

Trash the intelligence tests! We're back to the 19th century skull measurers!

I read Savage's book "left behind". She described the originators of the "IQ test" as very racist from the get go. It's likely that their biases and expectations haven't been filtered out of the modern tests completely.

[xrey]

Only minor changes in the gene pool would be made. Genetic diversity would not be reduced.
It all depends on how you define "genetic defect." To our precursors, those with a fuzed Chromosome #2 might have been considered "defective."

The environment changes with time, so what is a "defect" now may be a boon in another era.
Parental groups falling below the required scale factors should consent to be sterilised on a voluntary basis after being instructed that their offspring would range within the classes defined as either sick or unable to lead a reasonable existence. In case of refusal, a special judgment should be made by a group of geneticists and educational specialists. If this group of specialists favours sterilisation by a simple majority vote, sterilisation should be enforced.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? You've described a process which begs to be perverted.
The loss to society on account of the increasing number of the unfit (i.e. persons incapable of adapting to a complex, technological, information-intensive society) and those children born to parents with predictable genetic defects is staggering. The cost of persons with predictable genetic diseases alone has already increased well beyond the defence budget of the U.S.
I'd like to see some sources for that. Why not throw in the cost of eyeglasses and contact lenses while you're at it?
For the millions of criminals in our prisons (where the average IQ is 70), society continuously pays billions of dollars per year. In addition, we have to foot the bill for the hundreds of thousands of mentally retarded, sick, and inferior beings, born to defective parents.

I have not even counted the vast number of those creatures at the fringes of the IQ level needed for a useful life, born in slum environments with statistically poor heredity, condemned at birth to genetic slavery and permanent welfare dependency.
You're falling into several logical fallacies. Looking at the IQ of prisoners, welfare recipients, etc. doesn't mean that everyone with a low IQ is doomed to be a drain on society.

But the worst part is you are clinging to this notion that IQ is purely genetic, when environmental factors are just as important, probably more so. Going after genetics alone will not fix the underlying socioeconomic issues. Having a high IQ doesn't guarantee a person an education nor a job.

[AtheistNational]

I read Savage's book "left behind". She described the originators of the "IQ test" as very racist from the get go. It's likely that their biases and expectations haven't been filtered out of the modern tests completely.
Incorrect:

1.) Bias in IQ testing is not a matter of subjective impression, but can be objectively determined. One method is to determine whether or not a test has different predictive validities for different groups. This is quantitatively indexed by a test's correlative coefficient between the test scores and some measurement of performance on other criteria, e.g. teacher's marks, college grade-point average, or even such things as reaction time, glucose levels in the brain, etc. If blacks with IQs of 85 markedly differ in these areas from whites with the same IQ, the test can be said to be biased. This is not the case. IQ tests have virtually the same predictive validities for blacks as for whites. Therefore, they are not biased against blacks.

2.) If IQ tests were culturally biased against blacks, then blacks would obtain the lowest scores on culture-dependent items and the best and culture-fair items. The reverse is true. They perform the best on culture-dependent test items such as word analogies; they perform the worst on culture-free test items, such as reaction time tests, matrices, and digit span tests.

3.) Raven's matrices was constructed by an Englishman and standardised on Europeans. Yet Eskimos, many of whom live in greater poverty and cultural deprivation than American blacks, score six points higher than Englishmen.

4.) The originators of IQ tests are described as 'racist' only because they discovered average differences in intelligence between races. To say that IQ testing is 'biased' against blacks because they obtain low IQ scores is about as absurd as it would be to suggest that measuring sticks are biased against women because women are found to have lower stature than men.

[xrey]

One very important point is that genetics starts to be the operative factor when environmental factors are cancelled out. So in order to get started on eugenics, it is better that we should at first even out the imbalances of environmental endowment and create a level playing field. Then the influence of genetics will be hard to deny.
Exactly. I'm sure that if society had true equal opportunity, any average variation between genetic groups would be lost in the statistical noise.

[premjan]

Environments are shaped in a direction canalised by an individual's underlying genotype in a process called 'niche building'. People with different genetic predispositions shape different environments for themselves. The gifted child, more receptive to intellectual stimulation, creates a different environment for himself than the dull child. Intelligent parents provide their children with the double advantage of transmitting favourable genes to their children and providing them with a favourable environment. The same principle operates on groups. Thus, in order to improve environmental conditions, you must improve people's heredity. Eugenics must precede euthenics.This is all true to an extent especially in microenvironments, but macroenvironments are inherited to a large extent and shaped to a somewhat smaller extent. For instance the high-IQ Japanese didn't have a technological culure at first and inherited it from others. The high-IQ chinese are still building a better environment for themselves but in between their environment is getting shot to hell. My point is if you want to justify eugenics the best justification will be a level environmental playing field. Then eugenics will be a logical next step.

[AtheistNational]

It is important to note at the outset that there is no rational opposition to eugenics. Rather, opposition to eugenics stems wholly from irrational sources: religious superstitions, antiquated moral sentiments, paranoia, discredited pre-Darwinian beliefs, etc.

It all depends on how you define "genetic defect."
A genetic disease is a genetic abnormality that causes a disturbance of the physical or mental condition impairing one's quality of life.

The environment changes with time, so what is a "defect" now may be a boon in another era.
Hence Raymond Cattell's para-eugenics, which is research into creating new mutations to see how they will work out.

Genetic diversity is imperative, which is why I advocate the establishment of discrete raciocultural experiments. Thyis would give rise to nations with greater diversity and individuality, both culturally and genetically. Indeed, it would be desirable if the human species could evolve several different non-interbreeding species, since this would increase the number of options on which evolution can work.

I'd like to see some sources for that. Why not throw in the cost of eyeglasses and contact lenses while you're at it?
Poor eyesight is easily handled with corrective glasses. Feeblemindedness cannot be corrected by environmental intervention.

I see no reason why germline genetic engineering should not be given so that everyone can have 20/20 vision.

You're falling into several logical fallacies. Looking at the IQ of prisoners, welfare recipients, etc. doesn't mean that everyone with a low IQ is doomed to be a drain on society.
I have never suggested that all low IQ people are doomed to be a drain on society. I have never claimed that IQ is entirely genetic, or that genetics alone will fix everything.

[xrey]

It is important to note at the outset that there is no rational opposition to eugenics. Rather, opposition to eugenics stems wholly from irrational sources: religious superstitions, antiquated moral sentiments, paranoia, discredited pre-Darwinian beliefs, etc.
There is a very rational opposition to eugenics, namely how it was thoroughly misused in the past. You're using many of the same arguments that took us down a very ugly and unscientific path before.
A genetic disease is a genetic abnormality that causes a disturbance of the physical or mental condition impairing one's quality of life.
As defined by whom? Don't forget that often haploid incarnations of "defects" may be benign or even beneficial. We all know about sickle-cell anemia and malaria.

The opposite can also be true. For example, the genes that cause color-blindness in men can potentially provide the amazing new ability of Tetrachromacy in women. Compared to the baseline population, it's almost like a super-power.
Hence Raymond Cattell's para-eugenics, which is research into creating new mutations to see how they will work out.
Single point mutation gets way too much play relative to simply phenotype variability. Fortunately we don't need to fund research into that field, because plenty of males and females perform the necessary experiments voluntarily.
Genetic diversity is imperative, which is why I advocate the establishment of discrete raciocultural experiments. Thyis would give rise to nations with greater diversity and individuality, both culturally and genetically. Indeed, it would be desirable if the human species could evolve several different non-interbreeding species, since this would increase the number of options on which evolution can work.
Again, this will probably happen anyway. Given the high world population and tendency for many societies to reject outside ethnic groups, genetically homogeneous populations will be around for a very long time.
Poor eyesight is easily handled with corrective glasses. Feeblemindedness cannot be corrected by environmental intervention.

I see no reason why germline genetic engineering should not be given so that everyone can have 20/20 vision.
Your OP mentioned severe genetic problems, whose cost to the economy I think you are over-hyping. Further, I think you are using such severe genetic defects as a justification to go after less obvious ones, like "feeblemindedness"-whatever that means.

Of course we want to reduce the incidents of really bad diseases (say, Tay Sachs or Huntington's). But like diabetes and poor eyesight, there is less incentive to "perfect" genetics for problems for which simple and affordable technological remedies are available. For "low IQ," the solution is better education.
I have never suggested that all low IQ people are doomed to be a drain on society. I have never claimed that IQ is entirely genetic, or that genetics alone will fix everything.
Glad to hear it.

[AtheistNational]

This is all true to an extent especially in microenvironments, but macroenvironments
It is especially true of 'macroenvironments'.

For instance the high-IQ Japanese didn't have a technological culure at first and inherited it from others.
Most scientific and technological innovation is done by persons with IQs above 130. Japan is a homogenous population with a median IQ of 105 but with a relatively low standard deviation.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2530/sftfi1image3ip9.gif
(This is not accurate)

My point is if you want to justify eugenics the best justification will be a level environmental playing field.
If you want an equal playing field, you will need to increase the cognitive ability of the lower regions of genetic capacity. Sub-mediocre persons create poor environments for themselves and their children.

[premjan]

Well, anyway it is not especially true of macro-environments, it also extends to macro-environments given enough time.

[AtheistNational]

There is a very rational opposition to eugenics, namely how it was thoroughly misused in the past.
A careful study of the eugenics movement in Europe and America reveals that a number of reasonable decisions were made. Application of medical research to humans in the interest of all, birth control with quality checks, elimination of hereditary ills, population control, etc., do not represent a regressive programme.

You're using many of the same arguments that took us down a very ugly and unscientific path before.
You are invoking the long disreputed theories of environmental dominance which damaged Soviet genetic science for years under Stalin. It is incredible that the same people who look down upon the Stalin era invoke Lysenkoist arguments against genetic research and the formulation of eugenic programmes for human quality control.

For example, the genes that cause color-blindness in men can potentially provide the amazing new ability of Tetrachromacy in women. Compared to the baseline population, it's almost like a super-power.
We all know that many characteristics are influenced by pleitropic genes, so that selection for beneficial characteristic may also select for another trait that is undesirable, or vice versa. The relationship between myopia and intelligence is perhaps one example. Fortunately, enough is known that any mistake is unlikely. The only way a mistake could be made would be for a version of political correctness to exclude all selection for intelligence, whilst promoting selection against genetic illnesses.

The correct system is one in which all factors are assessed which contribute to the overall chances of a future child for a healthy and successful life.

The following factors would have to be screened and fed into a computer:

1. Genetic set-up of prospective parents. Here a more and more sophisticated scheme will give statistically valid answers starting from an analysis of the genetic set-up of the prospective parents. In this test, abnormalities of genes, hereditary illnesses, malfunctions and vitality are characterised.

2. IQ-test. Both parents undergo an intelligence test designed to classify statistically the level of their offspring. Information about family history is also relevant and should be stored.

3. Motivation. Special tests and personal history of both aprents should lead to a classification of their motivation as human beings in life. As motivation can be unique apart from intelligence and no good results are achievable with one without the other, these factors should appear as a product in the final classification.

4. Environment. The future child should not be born into a degraded or deprived environment. Therefore, a set of values has to be defined and a number system found to assess the environment of the child based on the prospective parents' life style and situation.

In all these tests, different parts of a population have to be screened with different weight factors. We do not expect to degrade a farmer and his wife by stringent IQ requirements, or to tax a highly trained university professor for a deficiency in muscular development. But as modern farming requires intelligence and university life good health and stamina, we have to strike a balance in these requirements.

Your objection that no definition, as precise as it may be, can define all future possibilities of development of a human being is without merit. We are excluding these chacnes once a human being is conceived. We are, however, concerned with the prospect of a useful life on a statistical basis for all humans born into a responsible civilisation.

No 'brave new world' is envisioned. All we intend to do is eliminate helpess creatures born into a hopeless environment.

Further, I think you are using such severe genetic defects as a justification to go after less obvious ones, like "feeblemindedness"
Correct.

Of course we want to reduce the incidents of really bad diseases (say, Tay Sachs or Huntington's). But like diabetes and poor eyesight, there is less incentive to "perfect" genetics for problems for which simple and affordable technological remedies are available.
When simple and affordable technological remedies are available, that is certainly an option.

As defined by whom?
Genetic diseases are defined by the medical community.

Don't forget that often haploid incarnations of "defects"
Again, you are confusing the words 'defect' and 'disease'. A genetic disease is an illness caused by an abnormality in an individual's genome.

may be benign or even beneficial.
'Diseases' are milignant by definition. I am referring to genetic diseases, not 'defects' or mutations.

For "low IQ," the solution is better education.
Unfortunately, education does not increase one's genetic capacity.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

One very important point is that genetics starts to be the operative factor when environmental factors are cancelled out. So in order to get started on eugenics, it is better that we should at first even out the imbalances of environmental endowment and create a level playing field. Then the influence of genetics will be hard to deny.

Improbable.
Naturalistic studies are designed so because results have to be implemented in the real world. Using just one-side of the results to tip the balance in the nature-nurture polemic like AtheistNational is doing is pure politics, not science. There's nothing wrong with genetics, it's one-seided quoting for it that smells of la politique.

[AtheistNational]

No, I base my arguments on the best available scientific estimates of hereditary factors in such disadvantages as low IQ and disease. You have argued in favour of a strict environmental determinism.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

No, I base my arguments on the best available scientific estimates of hereditary factors in such disadvantages as low IQ and disease.

That's my point. Your presentation has an obvious pro-heredity selection bias from the nature-nurture debate scenario.

You have argued in favour of a strict environmental determinism.

I'm actually a nature+nurture kind of guy. I'm just tipping the balance towards the "nurture" side to get a fuller, more balanced picture.

[premjan]

Basically it comes down to a political issue - are the chips as they currently fall for most people based more on genetics or more on environment. Social studies research might illuminate the matter. If most people would not significantly change their social rank in more egalitarian "fair play" circumstances, then there is no argument for better nurture. If they would, then there is. The in-between argument that the current levels of nurture are mainly a function of genetics is ... hard to refute except by collecting such data. Of course at this scale it boils down to politics, and of course we are in the middle of an election cycle.

[xrey]

A careful study of the eugenics movement in Europe and America reveals that a number of reasonable decisions were made. Application of medical research to humans in the interest of all, birth control with quality checks, elimination of hereditary ills, population control, etc., do not represent a regressive programme.
A lot of good things such as the juvenile justice system and flexible prison sentencing came out of eugenic pseudo-science. Yet that's no excuse to embrace new eugenic pseudo-science.

You are invoking the long disreputed theories of environmental dominance which damaged Soviet genetic science for years under Stalin. It is incredible that the same people who look down upon the Stalin era invoke Lysenkoist arguments against genetic research and the formulation of eugenic programmes for human quality control.
Oh please. Pointing out that environment is a major factor of elusive concepts like "quality" does not make me a Lamarckian. Stalin became convinced Soviet science could create the fabled Übermensch. Now you're saying we can achieve that same goal with current science. I think you greatly overestimate our knowledge and capabilities. It's hubris of the first order.
We all know that many characteristics are influenced by pleitropic genes, so that selection for beneficial characteristic may also select for another trait that is undesirable, or vice versa. The relationship between myopia and intelligence is perhaps one example. Fortunately, enough is known that any mistake is unlikely. The only way a mistake could be made would be for a version of political correctness to exclude all selection for intelligence, whilst promoting selection against genetic illnesses.

The correct system is one in which all factors are assessed which contribute to the overall chances of a future child for a healthy and successful life.

The following factors would have to be screened and fed into a computer:
A computer! That just masks the power given to the computer programmer. The same objectives can be accomplished with paper and a slide rule, which would just demonstrate how crude the whole concept is.

With such a large world population, just about any combination of genetic pairing is likely to happen anyway, so just about anything your computer program could prescribe will happen by accident.
When simple and affordable technological remedies are available, that is certainly an option.
Keep in mind that understanding how to treat defects--even inherited ones--provides incentive to unlocking how systems work. Would the field of optics have been invented when it was if not for the need for spectacles? Would we have dedicated as much research to understanding insulin pathways if not for diabetes?
Genetic diseases are defined by the medical community.
And these definitions change over time as new finding are uncovered.
Again, you are confusing the words 'defect' and 'disease'. A genetic disease is an illness caused by an abnormality in an individual's genome.
You conflated the two concepts in the OP. Using people's desire to rid the world of diabetes as justification for ridding the world of "mediocrity" is a fundamental bait-and-switch.

'Diseases' are milignant by definition. I am referring to genetic diseases, not 'defects' or mutations.
So by your definition, are the genes that cause sicke-cell anemia or color blindness "defects"? If so, do you want to select them out? Ridding the world of sickle-cell anemia would be a good thing (provided we solve malaria). Ridding the world of potential tetrachromacy is not so clear.

For "low IQ," the solution is better education.
Unfortunately, education does not increase one's genetic capacity.
It doesn't need to. All the data shows that educational opportunity (which usually comes through improving a nation's wealth) increases the average IQ by leaps and bounds. Let's maximize that first. Then we can see whether eugenics is warranted.

[AtheistNational]

A lot of good things such as the juvenile justice system and flexible prison sentencing came out of eugenic pseudo-science. Yet that's no excuse to embrace new eugenic pseudo-science.
xrey uses the term 'pseudoscience' for ideas he disagrees with for purely ideological reasons.

Oh please. Pointing out that environment is a major factor of elusive concepts like "quality" does not make me a Lamarckian.
The environmental and hereditary contributions to intelligence, personality, and mental disorders can be estimated with reasonable accuracy (e.g. MZA studies, inbreeding depression studies, sibling studies, adoption studies, genetic studies, etc.).

As for the 'elusiveness' of beneficial human qualities, I would again point out that the public have already decided what fundamental traits are valued. Schools are built because intelligence is preferable to stupidity. Prisons are built because law-abidingness is preferable to chaos. Hospitals are built because health is preferable to sickness. And so on.

Now you're saying we can achieve that same goal
No, I'm not. I am saying we can decrease human pain and suffering through a wise application of the laws of heredity.

I think you greatly overestimate our knowledge and capabilities. It's hubris of the first order.
You are overestimating our knowledge and capabilities. You think such disadvantages as low intelligence, criminality, poverty and disease can be eliminated purely through social engineering. I think both social and genetic measures are necessary.

With such a large world population, just about any combination of genetic pairing is likely to happen anyway, so just about anything your computer program could prescribe will happen by accident.
We are only concerned with ensuring a prospect of a useful and fulfilling life on a statistical basis. Your objection that all possibilites cannot be foreseen is without merit.

So by your definition, are the genes that cause sicke-cell anemia or color blindness "defects"?
This argument has already been discussed.

It doesn't need to. All the data shows that educational opportunity (which usually comes through improving a nation's wealth) increases the average IQ by leaps and bounds.
All the data show just the opposite, in fact. More on this later.

[bleubird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_idealism
Interesting academic discussion.But,in the real world this crap is meaningless.
It can not be controlled.It is open to all kinds of abuse.
You have trotted this out many times,and people smarter than me have shown you how unworkable it is.
I just find it offensive on a basic humane level.

As stated before,education,particularly of girls,has been one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty.Get them out of the" must marry" thing and give them some alternatives.

I had a hard time not sinking to personal insults.You make it very hard.

bleu

[Waning Moon Conrad]

So, AtheistNational, are you a member of the race with the statistically highest IQ? If not, can you justify your own reproduction?
I have never suggested that all persons who belong to races of high average intelligence should reproduce. In particular, mentally retarded persons, including those belonging to races with statistically high intelligence, are not fit to reproduce or to raise children.

When I become emperor, I want you to be my Minister for Reproductive Affairs.

[Hyndis]

Having a high IQ doesn't guarantee a person an education nor a job.

A good point in case would be myself. I have an exceptionally high IQ, in the 140's.

Only problem is that I'm severely bipolar, and as such, I can barely function in society despite my intelligence.

And that really sucks. :(

[jayh]

I've never denied that. What I have said is that it isn't a crucial factor. Education is, because no matter how you and I compare in IQ or brain cc's or whatever, it's our skills that matter, and it depends more on upbringing, education, etc, than anything else.

It IS a crucial factor. As I said, IQ is closely tied to genetics. Given reasonable (i.e. non-pathologically deficient) schooling people (of all backgrounds) with high IQ excel. People with lower genetically based IQ can get somewhat improved performance, but in the overall they do NOT excel.




Most mate selection is cultural. How is it possible that Spaniards could mate with negroes but white Americans to this very day, find such a selection unpalatable?

I'm NOT talking about racial matching. I'm talking about cues that indicate health, and non defficient genes. Many experiments have shown that we find healthy, genetically strong people sexually attractive. There is also evidence that (absent other limiting factors) things like histamine compatibility enter into our preferences even though we have no conscious awareness. Additionally we look at personality and intelligence, both things that improve the chances for our offspring's success.




This having been said, however, high IQ does NOT follow racial lines though there is some evidence that certain genetic pools (not entire races) have a different distribution than others. And additionally IQ does NOT have a correlation with other critical human attributes of honesty, morality or humand decency. To judge people only by their IQ would be a huge mistake.


One of many problems. For example, genes work together. In any case, this all makes the eugenetic suggestion in the OP unwarranted and socially undesirable. I suspect the best thing we can do is keep on mixing and mingling. Let every individual show what they're made of and succeed accordingly, just like we do today.


I agree that the OP is absolutely wrong in his conclusions and understanding. Humans do not get more rights just because they have a high IQ or less rights because they have a lower one. Additionally every person is an individual, and if certain groups have a lower AVERAGE IQ that says nothing whatsoever about any individual.

[premjan]

I think maybe the Spanish ladies weren't eager to come to the Americas?

[ahdenai]

we have to define the minimum qualifications of people on earth

I notice you said "we" - what if you're not one of the lucky ones who gets to write the definition? what if the "they" who write the definition end up defining the qualification to exclude you? Basically, you've come up with a whole bunch of pseudo-rational reasons to include yourself among the lucky ones.

n particular, mentally retarded persons, including those belonging to races with statistically high intelligence, are not fit to reproduce or to raise children.

This idea has been brought up before. The solution was called "aktion t4 (http://www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/t4intro.html)." Your post shows how easy it is to descend the slippery slope from something that almost sounds rational to something that is inhumane and immoral.

[ahdenai]

<Snip>

[Conservationist]

We must ask ourselves: What can be more humane than to decrease the number of births of those 20 million Americans who are born with diabetes, or the 12 million Americans (2.5% of births) born with genetic diseases?

How about reducing congenital stupidity?

Eugenics now!

[Togo]

The environmental and hereditary contributions to intelligence, personality, and mental disorders can be estimated with reasonable accuracy (e.g. MZA studies, inbreeding depression studies, sibling studies, adoption studies, genetic studies, etc.).

Just to clarify, you are generalising from these studies, where a strong hereditary element has been identified, to the more general case, on what basis?

As for the 'elusiveness' of beneficial human qualities, I would again point out that the public have already decided what fundamental traits are valued. Schools are built because intelligence is preferable to stupidity.

Schools are educational establishments. You've said that education does not improve 'general capacity'. How does building schools show the public's appetite for 'intelligence' if by your definition 'intelligence' is not a product of education?


There are some interesting ideas here, but I'm seeing some fairly large assumptions, floating like icebergs...

For example, you're assuming a system that promotes measureable merit. The problem is that almost all societies promote merit, with differing values of 'merit'. You've suggested a system of reproductive screening whereby people of low merit are discouraged from reproducing, and plan to measure merit by means of some form of IQ test.

Wouldn't it be easier to get communities to interview eachother, and then award reproduction to those people who showed the most favourable characteristics? The easiest way to determine favourability would be by local community consensus, thus promoting such people as the community favoured to fulfil the needs of society in that locality.

Better yet, push it onto an individual basis, and have each person decide based on merit which person they decide to engage in reproduction with. More meritous individuals would then have better selection prospects than those of lesser merit, and the least meritous would be discouraged from breeding at all. Precisely as you suggest, except that the criteria are infinitely more flexible and varied. Because the results all come back to the common pool, the assumptions that go into the selection process are themeselves being selected for by virtue of how their products are viewed by proponents of all other selection models.

That approach sound much better than the rigid one-dimension testing that you advocate. And it has the added benefit of being the process we have now. Can you explain why selecting on only one criterion is better than our existing selection process?

I also note that you tend to recommend and argue for 'intelligence' but in practice recommend IQ tests. Such disconnects are common on a forum where posts need to be concise, however this is a critical point if we are to understand your reasoning. Is it that you believe IQ and intelligence are the same thing, or merely that IQ is a useful indicator of intelligence (amongst many other such indicators). Or is IQ valuable over and above any relationship it might have with conventional intelligence?

[premjan]

Why use IQ? Just let the most powerful man in every community get all the woman. This is traditionally how haremage has worked - Genghis Khan is an ancestor of 8% of all males (and presumably at least as many females) in Asia for instance.

[militant agnostic]

Why use IQ? Just let the most powerful man in every community get all the woman. This is traditionally how haremage has worked - Genghis Khan is an ancestor of 8% of all males (and presumably at least as many females) in Asia for instance.

We almost certainly now live in an enviroment where intelligence is actually a detriment to reproduction. If we wan't society to be intelligent then we need standards for IQ and personality that have been proven succesful in terms of what is needed for a society to remain prosperous, modern, democratic, and stable.

If we want'd to, we could use advanced brain scanning and geneological research to create a huge ethnographic map that can preserve the data needed to experience and produce all of the varieties of intelligence, personality, cognitive traits, and physical charactaristics that are the result of hereditary expression. Then just set a standard for IQ and personality that is basically what almost all societies today view as needed for wise decision making and leadership as well as social functionality. That way anyone who wanted to not have to worry about their ethno cultural group dying out could make it impossible for them to actually die out because they could just whip up the nescisary DNA in a lab and make all the kids from it they wanted to by getting together and deciding how many to make.

Just restrict reproduction to all sentient and non sentient life that is designated to be within the bounds of "society" and then make sure that "soceity" doesn't reproduce beyond it's means by making only letting people have kids (or machines reproduce themselfs) when resources allow it.
We wouldn't have perfect equality, but we would have a much better system for allowing all citizens to live better lives and survive as cultures.

There would be no need to mandate that people reproduce. If people live forever because of medical technology exploding into biotech then we are not really going to need anything other than some social stability to ensure survival of ethnic groups because we won't need to make children to survive as cultures.

You could also pass laws requiring the state to give people access to the tools nescisary to raise their IQ themselves.

[Togo]

If we wan't society to be intelligent then we need standards for IQ and personality that have been proven succesful in terms of what is needed for a society to remain prosperous, modern, democratic, and stable.

I'd be surprised if there was any link at all between testable personality types and a sucessful society, let alone a proven one. Certainly I'm not aware of any such proof. Are you not just advocating a society based around a single measure? Is there any reason to suppose that society supporting a single measure of merit would be more successful than one that supports more than one measure? People with high IQ are not always sucessful, so we know there is more to success than what you are suggesting...

If we want'd to, we could use advanced brain scanning and geneological research to create a huge ethnographic map that can preserve the data needed to experience and produce all of the varieties of intelligence, personality, cognitive traits, and physical charactaristics that are the result of hereditary expression.

Not with existing technology we couldn't.

And again, there is more value to variety than using it as an insurance policy. Why do you think a society built around one standard is better than one built around many?

We wouldn't have perfect equality, but we would have a much better system for allowing all citizens to live better lives and survive as cultures.

Why?

You could also pass laws requiring the state to give people access to the tools nescisary to raise their IQ themselves.

Such as a variety of personality types to learn from?

Again, vast iceberg assumptions here. Why do you assume such a society would be more sucessful. Why does variety play no part in your proposed society? Why are you using one, and only one, measure of a person? And of all the measures to choose from, why a personality test like IQ?

[Nice Squirrel]

Why use IQ? Just let the most powerful man in every community get all the woman. This is traditionally how haremage has worked - Genghis Khan is an ancestor of 8% of all males (and presumably at least as many females) in Asia for instance.

We almost certainly now live in an enviroment where intelligence is actually a detriment to reproduction. If we wan't society to be intelligent then we need standards for IQ and personality that have been proven succesful in terms of what is needed for a society to remain prosperous, modern, democratic, and stable.

Actually humans have a potential range of IQ linked to IQ. Many outside factors determine how high that IQ will become. Factors such as diet, exercise, motor skill development, exposure to ideas and other humans all have a big impact on IQ. So in otherwords nearly all humans have an IQ of about 100. You can go +-20 based upon your environment. Those who are genetically presiposed to 120 can more easily goto 140 or 100. Genetic IQ is not a good determining factor for such criteria since many of the most gifted minds in society are quite normal genetically.

If we want'd to, we could use advanced brain scanning and geneological research to create a huge ethnographic map that can preserve the data needed to experience and produce all of the varieties of intelligence, personality, cognitive traits, and physical charactaristics that are the result of hereditary expression. Which would be a big waste of time due to factors such as the epigenome, false reporting, shifting social phenomeonon, and changing values.


Then just set a standard for IQ and personality that is basically what almost all societies today view as needed for wise decision making and leadership as well as social functionality. But at those who study leadership know there is no blueprint for effective leadership or wise descision making. Leadership and descsion making are situational and require differing approaches and different personal styles.

[Nice Squirrel]

If we wan't society to be intelligent then we need standards for IQ and personality that have been proven succesful in terms of what is needed for a society to remain prosperous, modern, democratic, and stable.

I'd be surprised if there was any link at all between testable personality types and a sucessful society, let alone a proven one.

No link has ever been found.

[ashe]

There's no need for eugenics programmes. As soon as the technology becomes stable and relatively safe (maybe before then), parents will do it to their children of their own free will.

"I want the best for my son/daughter." <-- heard that before?

Just like braces, breast implants, nose jobs, "graduation present" BMWs, Adderall and Modafinil, tutors, private coaches, and whatever other cockamamie schemes parents cook up to give their children a bright future, genetic manipulation will be something they will be considering.

If you thought the rich were getting richer now, just wait until they start "editing their own fitness potential", so to speak.

[militant agnostic]

If we wan't society to be intelligent then we need standards for IQ and personality that have been proven succesful in terms of what is needed for a society to remain prosperous, modern, democratic, and stable.

I'd be surprised if there was any link at all between testable personality types and a sucessful society, let alone a proven one. Certainly I'm not aware of any such proof. Are you not just advocating a society based around a single measure? Is there any reason to suppose that society supporting a single measure of merit would be more successful than one that supports more than one measure? People with high IQ are not always sucessful, so we know there is more to success than what you are suggesting...



Not with existing technology we couldn't.

And again, there is more value to variety than using it as an insurance policy. Why do you think a society built around one standard is better than one built around many?



Why?

You could also pass laws requiring the state to give people access to the tools nescisary to raise their IQ themselves.

Such as a variety of personality types to learn from?

Again, vast iceberg assumptions here. Why do you assume such a society would be more sucessful. Why does variety play no part in your proposed society? Why are you using one, and only one, measure of a person? And of all the measures to choose from, why a personality test like IQ?


The link between the temperament of a society and its success is plainly obvious. Societies with individuals that are prone to machismo style male aggression and sexual paranoia, juvenile family collectivism that uses an extreme reaction to perceived insults and a belief in having to defend family honor at all costs (making them gang like), profound intolerance and mockery of people who are different, and an chronic obsession with status have all been proven to be detrimental to society as a whole, as well as making the people in it less happy.

Other societies have a have values that promote high self esteem, tolerance for others, sexuality that allows for choice and multiple partners with significantly less paranoia of possible cheating and a view of sex that values empathetic relationships and hedonism, a strong value placed on individuality, a general belief in allowing people of different classes to mix and interact, and define success by how people feel about themselves and whether they enjoy and are proud of what they are doing, as well as viewing external success as more game like than something to feel ashamed about or superior because of.

All of these have a hereditary basis or cultural basis. Just look at the difference between western Europe, Japan, Korea, the parts of Africa that are have more egalitarian tribes vs. the middle east, the Balkans, the and other thar like areas of the world. Or for that matter the difference between northern and southern Italy.

The technological limitations won't be there for long.

And why do you think I am talking about there only being one standard? I stated diametrically the opposite. I think all people should be able to reproduce this way so long as they maintain a high IQ and maintain that they won't program their own offspring to be hereditarily intolerant and psychopathic. As well as accept reproducing in a set rate that doesn't allow for reproducing themselves beyond their personal and public means. The point is to create a society that allows beings to record what makes them a distinct race or species and control their reproduction, as well as to experience what they deem a suitable environment they want to spend their spare time in, or how to perceive their work experience.

That's the opposite of one standard.

Inequality would still exist since you would have some chose to use technology to increase their IQ higher than others, or make themselves more able to experience than others due to a different sense of what they want. However, that’s not the same as viewing people who still maintain a lower (but workable in terms of the minimum needed for the society to function) IQ and cognitive state as unnatural or wrong. It may also be possible to experience an ethno cultural groups lives and practices even if you’re IQ and cognitive faculties are able to experience much more. So even if you had a very high minimum IQ set for your society you would still have many people experience their culture in an imaginative way. Or for that matter others cultures as well.

I assume such a society would be more successful because in the real world liberal societies with lower reproductive rates and hedonistic cultures that value tolerence are more successful and just.

[Togo]

The link between the temperament of a society and its success is plainly obvious.

No it isn't. Eliminate ethnic stereotypes from your 'evidence' and there isn't even a strong link.

Other societies have a have values that promote high self esteem, tolerance for others, sexuality that allows for choice and multiple partners with significantly less paranoia of possible cheating and a view of sex that values empathetic relationships and hedonism, a strong value placed on individuality, a general belief in allowing people of different classes to mix and interact, and define success by how people feel about themselves and whether they enjoy and are proud of what they are doing, as well as viewing external success as more game like than something to feel ashamed about or superior because of.

These are all features that might reasonably be expected to be found in cultures that are sucessful. Whether that's cause or effect is another matter. You reckon high self-esteem was common in the Depression? (Buddy can you lend a dime?)

All of these have a hereditary basis or cultural basis. Just look at the difference between western Europe, Japan, Korea, the parts of Africa that are have more egalitarian tribes vs. the middle east, the Balkans, the and other thar like areas of the world.

Japan and Korea are more egalitarian than the Balkans? How so?

And why do you think I am talking about there only being one standard?

Because you're allowing reproduction to people who meet that standard, and denying it to those who don't. Whatever values you may embrace, reporduction is based only on that standard, and not on any other. Hence, one standard.

It's like you''re saying IQ is more important than anything else. Why?

I assume such a society would be more successful because in the real world liberal societies with lower reproductive rates and hedonistic cultures that value tolerence are more successful and just.

Even if you're right, what's that got to do with IQ?