Eugenics: Counter Argument to Inbreeding causing low IQ

[Cute Wolf]

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.

[Fragony]

It does redruce IQ, it really really does

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[classical_hero]

It does redruce IQ, it really really does

Yes, you have to dumb to believe this.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[Cute Wolf]

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

[Shibumi]

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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[Shibumi]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@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...

[CBR]

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.