Eugenics could, and if practiced in this particular favor, would produce more intelligent humans. No matter what the tactics, birthing limit on people with x IQ, genocide people with x IQ.... Whatever. So lets say that we have eliminated all humans with an IQ < 100. We haven't evolved the human gene pool, we have only constrained it. Every time there is a practice like this, unnatural selection, it leads to a genetic constraint. A good species has a wide variety of genes, the more variety, the more adaptable. If there was somehow a disease that only effected people of greater intelligence (ridiculous i know) then it would be nice to have some stupid humans, so after the epidemic of the anti-Einstein disease there could still be people left to breed and make anew. If you don't like the ridiculously improbable example i just gave, you can simply clone it with something more realistic and find it equally applicable and true.

The idea isn't to completely wipe them out, just keep them in low numbers. Like in a zoo, just for "what if" scenarios like yours.

Genetic diversity is a good thing. And even if both parents are somehow dumb doesn't mean the next generation of them will be 'dumb'

Atleast until we have completely deciphered our genetic makeup (we haven't.), then maintaining the diversity is really good.

I don't know If I agree with your "until we know everything we should do nothing" approach.

Well in this case, yes. Theres no way of telling what each DNA does, and what in the combination causes what is way over our heads right now. Its like trying to figure out the answer from a problem with too many variables.

That's what inhumane experimentation is for.

And yes, I'm saying that because I know it won't be me.

Well in your worst case scenario I guess say a virus that kills smart people starts wiping us out and with no stupid people the human race is doomed.

I'd reason that in the time it takes this virus to surface, we will already have the genetic advancements to adjust our own DNA back to its 'stupid' state thus saving us. We switch back whenever we can. If this answer sounds stupid it's only due to the even more absurd hypothetical scenario.

It's not my 'absurd' scenario. Plus, we're talking about now- and realistically, people will not allow it. And if we are to talk about 'reverting DNA', we're talking about thousands of years away.

Tell me, how would a virus target smart people? How is that possible? I just don't understand how you can justify saying something so nonsensical. Hey, what about a virus that kills everyone who has a tendency to get angry, or every tenor!

There comes a point where a worst-case-scenario becomes unrealistic. This isn't ANY argument against eugenics.

Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disease. It is caused by having two recessive genes. Having a combination of dominant and recessive doesn't revert to the dominant gene like normal, but rather leaves the offspring with a mix of normal and sickle blood cells. Eugenics dictates that we completely eradicate the recessive gene in favor of the clearly superior dominant allele. But, sickle cells are more resilient to malaria. Having the mix of the two genes makes the offspring more resilient to malaria while still having some regular blood cells.

So imagine a gene is linked to higher IQ. And along comes a new virus. The gene linked to the higher IQ is also linked to higher infection rates with this new virus. It's not completely unrealistic.

A gene linked to a higher IQ, fine. Are you saying that if we continuously cut off the lower-IQ populace, every surviving person will have that gene? A few will, sure; however, there will be many, many different causes for a higher IQ, so that a virus that attacks one gene wouldn't do terrible damage to the human race.

Isn't the purpose of eugenics to enhance the human race by eliminating inferior genes? As a SENer once had in his signature, "your pool needs cleaning. No, your gene pool, you idiot". If a gene is clearly linked to higher IQ, it will be selected for breeding. It doesn't matter how many other genes are influence IQ. That one will still be a desirable gene.

Now that I think about it, eugenics doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary standpoint. In nature, sexual reproduction is considered superior because it allows quicker adaptation vs. asexual reproduction. Making a more homogeneous gene pool only reduces that adaptability.

We currently have no idea what gene does what. We've barely scratched the surface of our DNA- we've only mapped what there were- its like a multilayered encryption, except a super complex one at that.
But if Human society keeps revolving around better and higher education > lower education, then Humans will naturally evolve to have more intelligence. There is no need for eugenics.

Even with this, there will be many, many different paths to a superior human. Some people will have superior gene x, others will have superior gene y, some will have gene x and z, and on and on to however many paths there are. If (this is, of course, very unlikely) there rises something we can't stop with our medicine that somehow kills everyone with gene z off, there's still a lot of humans, and they're still much smarter than their more archaic counterparts. No such disease will kill off more than a tiiiny fraction of all superhumans.

Very, very slowly. This seems to mostly describe Lamarckism, or inherited acquired characteristics. I don't see how getting the people with the worse genes and the people with the better genes to go to school would significantly speed up evolution. Eugenics, on the other hand, would significantly speed up the process, while a lower population would unburden the Earth, the rate of technological advancement would increase, and whatever else nice will happen.

But then- you'd have to find a way to accurately measure intelligence. IQ tests are relative to one's (sadly) education levels and, language (lets say a Mexican kid migrated from Mexico to U.S. recently and took an intelligence test without having to learn English a bit better. That would quite result with a report of 'low intelligence', when the kid's actual intelligence is abnormally high.) Thats part one of a problem.

Part two is the fact that one could have a 'low intelligence', even with 'high intelligence'' genes. It could possibly result from emotional stress from neglection, getting hit in the head, parents were druggies, or a mother got a disease while pregrant. To find ones with 'high intelligence' genes, you'd need to know, what genes do what- and how they work in combination.

I just had an interesting idea that if there was a certain combination that caused high intelligence and had an inverse combination that also caused high intelligence- but combined together that makes an 'unintelligent' being. With Eugenics in place, you'd have to seperate them- forcibly.

I think if a government capable of doing this were to do it, they'd be able to think of a way to measure actual intelligence.
You don't need to cut out and paste it together. You just stop those with a low generic intelligence index (found by government) from reproducing.

What, put a stick in your brain?

If you hadn't any idea how horrid it is to be sterilized against your will, Eugenics would just be an abomination in Human history.

Eugenics is an abomination in history. It is commonly called the Holocaust.

That's a rather poor attempt at eugenics, no? Hitler did it out of spite and nationalism. If I ever get around to doing it (despite what I say on forums, I'm usually pretty moral and don't think I could do anything near it if I were world dictator), it would probably be sterilization instead of mass murder, and it would be done to preserve the Earth's resources for future generations in addition to the obvious effect of eugenics.

The morals question of eugenics is a separate one, for me. If morals were out of the question, I'd be 100% for it. It eases the burden on the earth, it accelerates development, and the only downside is less diversity. Morality complicates the question. Would it still be very good? Yes, I believe so. Would it badly hurt billions? Yes. So... while I support it in a debate... blah blah blah.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 13 2009, 1:37 am by Centreri.

Well, we know which gene causes sickle cell anemia. We don't know what every gene does.

Stop anthropomorphizing the earth. The earth has no responsibilities, and therefore, no burdens. It's a rock.

How? That implies stupid people on earth are slowing down progress, whatever that is. What you and I consider progress differs.

That is the issue. That's like saying if you ignore the morality of abortion*, it's an easy issue to decide.

*I've actually seen someone make that argument. We were talking about the national health care plan and how it would provide federal funding for abortions. They tried to argue that if you ignore the moral aspect, abortions are relatively cheap so it wouldn't make much of a difference in the cost. However, morality is the issue, not cost.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 18 2009, 3:39 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: don't call 'bullshit' on people's arguments.