Eugenics

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad you couldn't have any kids then. I mean - it would worsen that society.

[madnak]

That's a different issue.

Also, the fact that I kick ass is independent from the fact that I'm a genius. Even if I were no longer a genius, I would still kick ass. Thus, my having kids is always +EV. Unless everyone else kicks even more ass than I do, in which case...

*head asplode!*

[tame_deuces]

It'll be one mean, intelligent and asskicking society. For what it's worth. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

you lack imagination if you believe this. the underclass in a society that promotes eugenics would likely be looked upon the way an untouchable is in a caste system. you'd lead the worst kind of life...assuming that they wouldnt just kill you when it became apparent at an early age that you were of lower intelligence.

and ability is relative (almost entirely so.) the things you could accomplish with a 150+ IQ in this society far outnumber what you could do in a world where 150+ was below average.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
you lack imagination if you believe this. the underclass in a society that promotes eugenics would likely be looked upon the way an untouchable is in a caste system. you'd lead the worst kind of life...assuming that they wouldnt just kill you when it became apparent at an early age that you were of lower intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored]. Hell, even in today's society that isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]
and ability is relative (almost entirely so.) the things you could accomplish with a 150+ IQ in this society far outnumber what you could do in a world where 150+ was below average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, [censored]. I'd be able to do more in such a society, because they'd have better training and education programs. The idea that I would forget how to take derivatives if everyone else became smart - that's absurd.