Eugenics

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people who object to eugenics, as best I can tell, do not object to it because it does/doesn't work. It's because they simply don't view it as the goal of human enterprise, especially when it comes with suffering as a cost.

[/ QUOTE ]Not only does it not work, but, even if it did work (whatever the hell that means), we should be roundly rejecting it for being a completely immoral enterprise.

To seriously talk for (or propagate) eugenics at this day and age is a sign of ignorance, imbecility or bigotry.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring ethics it seems highly unlikely that breeding for intelligence wouldn't result in cleverer people.

Could be what happened with the ancient grreks and/or those jewish chaps. If you bring kids up in an intellectual environment then they are more likely to select for an intelligent mate.

chez

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Ignoring ethics it seems highly unlikely that breeding for intelligence wouldn't result in cleverer people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The goal isn't "lets have smarter people", its the belief that removing the less intelligent will lead to a better outcome for the human race overall.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ignoring ethics it seems highly unlikely that breeding for intelligence wouldn't result in cleverer people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The goal isn't "lets have smarter people", its the belief that removing the less intelligent will lead to a better outcome for the human race overall.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we selected for the more intelligent and didn't let the relatively stupid reproduce then we would get a higher average intelligence. That seems obvious.

No idea what it means to talk of a better outcome for the human race. Sounds horrible to me but I don't know what the criteria are.

The inherited disease type arguments are kind of irrelevent in terms of this thought experiment. Even without eugenics we will (or could) get to the stage of being able to avoid all of them.

chez

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
The inherited disease type arguments are kind of irrelevent in terms of this thought experiment. Even without eugenics we will (or could) get to the stage of being able to avoid all of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The inherited disease type arguments are kind of irrelevent in terms of this thought experiment. Even without eugenics we will (or could) get to the stage of being able to avoid all of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]
We will (or could) get to the stage of understanding genetics well enough so that we filter out, or correct for, any inherited disease.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"There is a more politically palatable way to increase our collective I.Q.s, if that were our goal -- propaganda. What members of our species find sexually attractive is heavily influenced by social conditioning. If we made a concerted effort to link intelligence to desirability in the minds of the public"

Finally somebody with a really good idea.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The inherited disease type arguments are kind of irrelevent in terms of this thought experiment. Even without eugenics we will (or could) get to the stage of being able to avoid all of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]
We will (or could) get to the stage of understanding genetics well enough so that we filter out, or correct for, any inherited disease.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But their point is that these diseases are closely tied to the increased intelligence because of the effect on the brain.

Even so, we're a looooong way from knowing genetics that well.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The inherited disease type arguments are kind of irrelevent in terms of this thought experiment. Even without eugenics we will (or could) get to the stage of being able to avoid all of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]
We will (or could) get to the stage of understanding genetics well enough so that we filter out, or correct for, any inherited disease.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But their point is that these diseases are closely tied to the increased intelligence because of the effect on the brain.

Even so, we're a looooong way from knowing genetics that well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Evem if there's some fundemental limiting factor on intelligents in a human brain we could move the average up towards it and maybe even advance beyond it. Seems very unlikely we are anywhere near a fundemental limit, hman brains probably stopped improving when the evlutionary pressure stopped.

I'm taking the looooooong view. maybe eugenics would make it less loooong.

chez

[valenzuela]

Why is everyone talking about 50% or any specific number? In my opinion the state should force anyone whose child will clearly be -EV to society to have a visectomy. (most prisioners)

It seems like I missed the part of the thread where somebody explains why is intelligence the main characteristic to look for.

Im not actually disagreeing with the -removing the bottom 50% (in terms of intelligence) of each ethnic group. IMO this would greatly benefit the human gene pool and the long term success of the human race, with few drawbacks-.
statement. But I do think that Getting rid of the 50% of the persons with less moral rectitude is way much better than getting rid of the 50% of the persons with less IQ

[Borodog]

Caveat: I have not read the rest of the thread, only the OP. So if someone has already brought this up, consider this a quote for truth.

The actions required to "remove" the "bottom" 50% of the human race would quite likely result in a conflict of a scale that would remove the top 50% as well.

For example, Hitler's eradication of 6 million Jews resulted in the deaths of tens of millions.