Eugenics: Counter Argument to Inbreeding causing low IQ

Yes inbreeding can cause a raft of genetic problems, but it does not automatically cause IQ decreases. Environmental pressures cause the selection of traits to occur. Inbreeding just speeds up the visibility of recessive characteristics that wouldn't be triggered as easy if the genes weren't paired recessives.

There are well studied groups of limited gene pools and they don't automatically have low IQ as some recessive traits can be positive. The main group to consider in this possibly have the highest IQ of any ethnic group the Ashkenazi who dominate a lot of highly intellectual areas whilst showing a very high rate of genetic disorders.

=][=

As a side note EQ =/= IQ

Some of the loveliest people have extra chromosomes causing them to have limited intellectual capacity. On the other hand science types can be very socially inept. Autism is higher in children whose parents are both mathmaticians. Autistic kids can be described as geniuses who have very low social skills.

=][=

So inbreeding does not automatically equal low IQ does not automatically equal low EQ.

A much closer line of regression to having a violent future is having a violent past.

Nature and nurture are both responsible.

Nature:
inbreeding, toxins in utero (carbon monoxide, alcohol. narcotics, hypoxia etc)

Nurture:
Large number of siblings
Malnutrition
Lack of stimulation
Poor / abusive parenting

Inbreeding does increase the odds ratio of sub-par IQ. Nature is very keen on Eugenics. In small populations there will be an increased rate of child deaths of those who have "bad" recessive genes. These days we don't do this, so these genes are much more likely to be propagated.

EQ - is that emotional quotient? Most autistic children have low IQs and EQs. There are a small number of high functioning autistics who are probably more like savants than geniuses.

Violence screws everyone up in almost all levels.

Oh, Article - inbreeding does cause lower IQ.

~:smoking:

The number of savants found in autistic populations is about 1 in 2000, and those tend to have less than useful "specializations". There are actual specific types of retardation where the afflicted person has a very positive disposition, as well as significantly diminished mental capacities. There are a number of different factors that contribute to retardation, inbreeding is indeed one of them. I would pause before calling those who are socially inept "retarded".

in strict mendelian probability, in the long run, before, I said again, BEFORE modern era, actually inbredding will increase the advantageous genes instead
since the individuals who inherit lethal/disadvantageous gene will simply dead sooner than later

to lesser degree, we can see this on dog pedigree

Yes; like this may well work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yes; like this may well work.

---

of course, if we're heartless enough to simply terminate every embryo with genetic defects, while practicing inbreedings, the surviving human offsprings will have greater proportion of advantageous genes.

It does redruce IQ, it really really does

Inbreeding is likely to lead to lower IQ for the same reason it is likely to lead to all sorts of diseases: humans are a social species which is a powerful way of shielding you from the effects of bad genes or habits and letting you pass them on*. In case of IQ is primarily something which requires stimulation to develop, it is not solely genetic; but on the other hand stimulating your children (engaging them) is learned behaviour, too. Children of bad parents are more likely to become bad parents themselves by copying their parents' bad parenting, etc.

* If you're a member of a solitary species you simply cannot afford to make as many “mistakes” or have so many “genetic defects” since the cost amounts to your death. By contrast social species allow for the group to shelter the weak, or assign menial tasks to those who can't tell edible plants from poisonous etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

of course, if we're heartless enough to simply terminate every embryo with genetic defects, while practicing inbreedings, the surviving human offsprings will have greater proportion of advantageous genes.

---

To a degree, because the risk you take with monoculture is wipe out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

To a degree, because the risk you take with monoculture is wipe out.

---

right, even if we screen the known "defect" genetics, what if somewhat reasons another, non previously known, bad genetics sprung out?

and since even till now, we did can do the DNA sequencings, justwe still not understand them much

Fragony, you are so wrong here.

I do not argue against your claim that africans have lower IQ, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Na...Inequality.png kind of points towards you being right.

However, there are bigger factors at stake here.

Horses have been bred for countless of years, weak ones have not been allowed to reproduce. This has lead to a brilliant average, but with that said, it is not like todays horses will get a world record anytime soon.

We absolutely need the shallow end of the genepool for the depth to occur. Or more matter of factly - no retards no Einsteins.

I much prefer a chaotic genepool, where miracles can happen, to a controlled one where miracles will not.

However, with that said, I would also like a society where the less wanted beings did not parasite on the rest, just for the off chance that they produce something worthwhile in a few generations.

But hey, you could use pretty much the same argument as to why rape is good from a genetical standpoint. We just have to face that we threw "survival of the fittest" out the window some thousands of years ago. As luck has it, a couple of thousands of years are not worth much in this perspective.

EDIT: I really do think the moderators here are doing a less than good job

IQ tests are generally biased towards middle class white people. Effort is also a large determinant to score.

So, although there might be a correlation between a lower IQ and some ethnic groups, this in itself does not indicate causation.

~:smoking:

People still die before having offspring. Evolution much like history for humans is still very much alive.

Our environment still has pressures built into it. Just look at the likes of Amy Winehouse... Young adults and children still die of suicide, car accidents, drug and alcohol overdoses, and more modern deaths like jay walking whilst having iPhone turned up to 11.

Now without selective pressures remove to winnow out those who cannot or worse will not look after themselves we have lost a portion of our evolutionary process. However people are still selecting mates based on looks (health & fertility) and wealth (fitness, smarts, hereditary, strategic traits) so in the whole we are still on the evolutionary wheel.

Evolution does not automatically mean stronger, faster, smarter in fact it selects on survival within the previous envionment. Western governments are continuously involved in eugenics around the world. They alter the environment for all it's citizens with hospital's, fireman, police, schools etc which in turn increase the chances of survival.

The problem is that whilst engaged in the noblest of deeds in protecting some of or weakest we are rewarding those who are parasites on systems. The most obvious and easy targets are welfare mums with six kids and five different fathers... Without government intervention these scenarios would not be multi-generational successes.

Other forms of enviromental change are not so obvious be it IVF for those who would not be able to have children or massive material inequities allowing 80 year old billionaires to attract young fertile mates. Neither of these scenarios could happen without the governments and societies that support them.

So yes evolution is still happening. We should not assume that eugenics is not taking place, what we should do is carefully review are we actually loading the dice in a manner that is beneficial in the long term? Then we have to figure in traits that have mixed outcomes like sickle cells, after all not all mutations are solely good or bad and we as a species still fail on the ones that create foresight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

People still die before having offspring. Evolution much like history for humans is still very much alive.

---

Yes and no. At a broader perspective, more no then yes. We let kids live no matter what, because we can. Have a look at Cystic Fibrosis as an example, we pour countless amounts of money into them. We have X amount of adults working to keep these few kids alive on a daily basis. Why? Because we can. Because it is the right thing to do. Why let a child die when we can keep it alive? Is it a burden on society though? Oh hell yes. Fun fact - it is a genetical disease.

Logic: Let them die.
Humanity: Let's not.

Quote:

---

Our environment still has pressures built into it. Just look at the likes of Amy Winehouse... Young adults and children still die of suicide, car accidents, drug and alcohol overdoses, and more modern deaths like jay walking whilst having iPhone turned up to 11.

---

Worst. Point. Ever.

We are not supposed to live as we do. We live in an artificial world, that at the same time is the real world we do in fact live in. Oxymoron - nah - we just created our own world. And now we pay the price.

We are supposed to be surrounded by a tribe, it is how we are meant to function. Amy Winehouse would probably still be alive if she would have been born some hundred years ago, as she would have been surrounded by people who cared about her, and told her to chill, instead of people actually making money the more headlines she made. Get my point?

Quote:

---

Now without selective pressures remove to winnow out those who cannot or worse will not look after themselves we have lost a portion of our evolutionary process. However people are still selecting mates based on looks (health & fertility) and wealth (fitness, smarts, hereditary, strategic traits) so in the whole we are still on the evolutionary wheel.

---

Selecting mates based on looks? That is why old, ugly, rich guys bed 20 year old super models? Or remind me again what your point was?

We let retards play hide the Willy with other retards, the hottest girls in the world are going for guys who had a father or grandfather with cash, we spend our tax money on keeping people alive who by nature should be dead. Sure there is some form of evolution going on, but if it is for the betterment of mankind or not, well, the jury is still out on that one, no?

Quote:

---

Evolution does not automatically mean stronger, faster, smarter in fact it selects on survival within the previous envionment. Western governments are continuously involved in eugenics around the world. They alter the environment for all it's citizens with hospital's, fireman, police, schools etc which in turn increase the chances of survival.

---

I agree that evolution of humanity today does not mean stronger, faster, smarter. But I disagree that it would select survival of humanity at large. If a natural disaster struck, we would have been way more able to deal with it some ten thousand years ago.

As to your second point - Hospitals, firemen and police increase the survival chance of the masses, not of the the human race at large.

Quote:

---

The problem is that whilst engaged in the noblest of deeds in protecting some of or weakest we are rewarding those who are parasites on systems. The most obvious and easy targets are welfare mums with six kids and five different fathers... Without government intervention these scenarios would not be multi-generational successes.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Other forms of enviromental change are not so obvious be it IVF for those who would not be able to have children or massive material inequities allowing 80 year old billionaires to attract young fertile mates. Neither of these scenarios could happen without the governments and societies that support them.

---

IVF? May I remind you that not everyone on this forum is a native english speaker.

As to the rest, you see the same points as me, but you seem to draw very different conclusions.

Quote:

---

So yes evolution is still happening. We should not assume that eugenics is not taking place, what we should do is carefully review are we actually loading the dice in a manner that is beneficial in the long term? Then we have to figure in traits that have mixed outcomes like sickle cells, after all not all mutations are solely good or bad and we as a species still fail on the ones that create foresight.

---

Evolution is not happening, we are creating an artificial one, where we have taken over from nature, very much creating the bubble we live in. It is not evolution if it is man made, but I think you agree with me on this reading what you wrote.

I liked your post at large, and this is a very difficult topic.

Where we really differ is that you believe that evolution is happening, whereas I mean that - yes, it happens, but only in an artificial bubble disconnected to nature at large. Evolution indicates that nature controls it, whereas I claim that we now control nature - to the extent of being able to survive where we should not.

@Pape: we still have pressure, we still have sexual selection. But in society humans are able to overcome so many evolutionary obstacles it's no comparison, to the point we can extend such advantages to other species (pets, cattle, poultry, etc.).

You don't have to be strong and fit in order to survive because you live in a society which actively seeks to prevent countless disasters that might well befall you if you were on your own: starvation, a host of fatal illnesses, sharks with lasers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It does redruce IQ, it really really does

---

Yes, you have to dumb to believe this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibumi

Amy Winehouse would probably still be alive if she would have been born some hundred years ago, as she would have been surrounded by people who cared about her, and told her to chill, instead of people actually making money the more headlines she made. Get my point?

---

Which would suggest that the genes that can handle the lack of close relatives and friends will survive better. Which means evolution is still happening.

We are still being hit by viruses and we have little control over major natural disasters that could change our environment.

And I guess genetic drift is doing something too.

The human gene pool has never been larger and is mixing formerly isolated ethnic groups. So overall lots of evolution going on.

@Shimubi I am not advocating eugenics on stupid people, only on stupid young criminals. The types that rob a granny and kick her in the face. If an IQ tests shows they are basicly retarded there is no need throw money at them, too stupid for (costly) improvement. Just like pedophiles should be castrated they should be sterilised

Um why not sterilize the smart criminals:

A) they should know better
B) they are generally harder to catch in the first place
C) do you really want super smart criminals breeding in preference to dumb ones?

Essentially by only sterilizing the dumb ones you are breeding bright ones.. No good when the group selected might be psychopaths. Might as well rename the original thread "how to breed smarter criminals"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Um why not sterilize the smart criminals:

A) they should know better
B) they are generally harder to catch in the first place
C) do you really want super smart criminals breeding in preference to dumb ones?

Essentially by only sterilizing the dumb ones you are breeding bright ones.. No good when the group selected might be psychopaths. Might as well rename the original thread "how to breed smarter criminals"

---

Smart criminals hardly cause any trouble to the ordinary Joe. They don't prey on the elder and the disabled. I want my grandmother to be able to walk the street at night without having to worry about getting ganged up by a bunch of hyena's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Which would suggest that the genes that can handle the lack of close relatives and friends will survive better. Which means evolution is still happening.

We are still being hit by viruses and we have little control over major natural disasters that could change our environment.

And I guess genetic drift is doing something too.

The human gene pool has never been larger and is mixing formerly isolated ethnic groups. So overall lots of evolution going on.

---

That's not "evolution", that's just genetic variation and cross-breeding.

When you cross a German Shepard with a Labrador dogs are not "evolving", they are just mixing between populations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That's not "evolution", that's just genetic variation and cross-breeding.

When you cross a German Shepard with a Labrador dogs are not "evolving", they are just mixing between populations.

---

lets see... I mentioned how some genes might have an advantage, even in our "unnatural" society. Major events that could either wipe out a lot of humans or even change our genes. A generic drift as well as a large population that could produce all kinds of mutations, and if the "mutants" can reproduce then that new variety will be part of the species. That coves most of the mechanics in evolution.

Does breastfeeding until your are 16 technically count as "inbreeding?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Um why not sterilize the smart criminals:

A) they should know better
B) they are generally harder to catch in the first place
C) do you really want super smart criminals breeding in preference to dumb ones?

Essentially by only sterilizing the dumb ones you are breeding bright ones.. No good when the group selected might be psychopaths. Might as well rename the original thread "how to breed smarter criminals"

---

Awesomeness!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

lets see... I mentioned how some genes might have an advantage, even in our "unnatural" society. Major events that could either wipe out a lot of humans or even change our genes. A generic drift as well as a large population that could produce all kinds of mutations, and if the "mutants" can reproduce then that new variety will be part of the species. That coves most of the mechanics in evolution.

---

No it does not. At most, you have described a very weak case of natural selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Um why not sterilize the smart criminals:

A) they should know better
B) they are generally harder to catch in the first place
C) do you really want super smart criminals breeding in preference to dumb ones?

Essentially by only sterilizing the dumb ones you are breeding bright ones.. No good when the group selected might be psychopaths. Might as well rename the original thread "how to breed smarter criminals"

---

It's sociopaths that one wants to be very scared of.

Criminality is usually undertaken by those who have nothing better they can do. Those with a brain can undertake various activities that are perfectly legal - Law, Accountancy or the futures markets to name but a few. The difference between white collar crime and being a pillar of the community is merely timing. Blue collar crime is always illegal.

There will be almost infinite uses for clever people for the forseeable future. We already have a surplus of organ donors. As such, those who are clever reproducing is rarely a bad thing.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

No it does not. At most, you have described a very weak case of natural selection.

---

Feel free to add to the list of stuff that is happening then.

edit: and why link to an wiki article on Genetic Drift? To show it plays no role in current evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It's sociopaths that one wants to be very scared of.

Criminality is usually undertaken by those who have nothing better they can do. Those with a brain can undertake various activities that are perfectly legal - Law, Accountancy or the futures markets to name but a few. The difference between white collar crime and being a pillar of the community is merely timing. Blue collar crime is always illegal.

There will be almost infinite uses for clever people for the forseeable future. We already have a surplus of organ donors. As such, those who are clever reproducing is rarely a bad thing.

~:smoking:

---

Sociopaths can be incredibly stupid. You just lack compassion and empathy. Also sociopaths may very well never commit a crime hey are just more likely too (much more likely)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It's sociopaths that one wants to be very scared of.

Criminality is usually undertaken by those who have nothing better they can do. Those with a brain can undertake various activities that are perfectly legal - Law, Accountancy or the futures markets to name but a few. The difference between white collar crime and being a pillar of the community is merely timing. Blue collar crime is always illegal.

There will be almost infinite uses for clever people for the forseeable future. We already have a surplus of organ donors. As such, those who are clever reproducing is rarely a bad thing.

~:smoking:

---

Sociopaths can be incredibly stupid. You just lack compassion and empathy. Also sociopaths may very well never commit a crime hey are just more likely too (much more likely)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Sociopaths can be incredibly stupid. You just lack compassion and empathy.

---

Exactly

edit: sniff sniff Rory? et tu?