Debate and Discussion

polluting the gene pool?
Bittenbymonk at 6:01PM, April 13, 2009
(offline)
posts: 422
joined: 1-6-2008
Now, this could be quite a sore topic, but it's interesting to get a poll of people's views on the subject. I'm speaking on the assumption that everyone is familiar with the ‘survival of the fittest’ theory of genetics (if not, look it up)

As we all (should now) know, if a creature is unfit to survive, it cannot breed and pass on its genetic material, simple enough. This allows creatures to evole and adapt to their environments etc. Now, in our society, people are surviving who would otherwise be unable to survive in the wild, which is kind of like mankind's triumph against nature, right? Well, using this logic, we can assume that people with such genetic diseases as Haemaphelia, Huntingtons, sickle cell anaemia and other general gentic faults can survive long enough to breed in our society, passing on their gentic material into a new generation, who, in turn will suffer these same gentic diseases- this would not happen in the wild as the parental sufferers would have died before being able to reproduce. In effect, by encouraging the survival of people who have genetic defecits, we are ‘polluting’ our gene pool as a whole- allowing the continuation of detrimental mutations and other gentic faults that would otherwise not pass a generation or so. The theory of evolution states that it is is the fate of every species (including our own) to become extinct, but are we speeding up its demise by attempting to keep everyone alive?

I'm not expressing any wish to ‘purify’ our gene pool (history has a way of dealing with people who try), nor am I suggesting that we should leave those with gentic deficits to die, just to clarify that. what do YOU guys think about this whole debate?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
Puff_Of_Smoke at 6:38PM, April 13, 2009
(offline)
posts: 3,510
joined: 5-28-2007
I believe that we are technically polluting it by living by technology and keeping people who would usually die off in the wild alive but that technology is our edge over evolution, if anything. We use it to survive, we succeed.
I
I have a gun. It's really powerful. Especially against living things.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:56PM
Product Placement at 6:50PM, April 13, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
We may have distance ourselves from nature but we're still a part of it. Famine, diseases, genetic degradation and other various factors affect us just as much as it affects the other animals. Our mayor tool against these factors is our ability to adapt to changes. Physically we can only live in a relatively small place on the planet but thanks to our mind we have found ways to circumvent our physical limitations and spread across the entire globe. We create farms when food is scarce, we create warm shelters and clothing when temperatures drop. We develop medicines and treatments against diseases and other illnesses that might threaten a large part of our population. No other animal can combat mother nature like we can.

As time passes we notice coming future problems like Ice ages, build up of impurities in our genetic pool, pollution and threats from outer space and start to plan accordingly. Today doctors spend a great deal of time studying our genetic code with hopes of destroying all possible forms of unwanted genes. Before we had those tools in our arsenal, we considered selected breeding and “cleansing” of unwanted individuals. As a child I started to think about this in great detail and I'm forced to admit that if I had been raised in Nazi Germany in the 30s I would have become an adamant follower of their views on cleansing the gene pool of people with mental and physical handicaps.

We may enter a age soon where humans distances himself far enough from nature that they manage to detach themselves from it completely. Possible advances so far fetch that we can't properly comprehend them may be behind the horizon. They could be presented in the form of an injection that completely rewrites our DNA, creating a superior humans out of anyone who takes them. Nanotechnology that replaces our organic parts with cybernetics, turning us into living machines. Interface technology that links our minds to networks, thus making our bodies unnecessary. Many possible advances could dramatically chance us, making future man unrecognizable to the modern man. Imagine total immunity against any microbe. Physical immortality against anything but mightiest of traumas. No need to eat or sleep, requiring an alternative, more efficient power source.

The theory of evolution may state that every species is doomed to become extinct but evolution may not apply to us. In the end mankind may become eternal. At the same time you may contemplate if humanity is at end since something vastly different is bound to emerge from such ascension.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
kyupol at 7:16PM, April 13, 2009
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
The first post reminds me of Adolf Hitler.


“This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too.”


And Margaret Sanger…


“No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood.”
- Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) in her proposed The American Baby Code, intended to become law.

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
- Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
- Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.


NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
megan_rose at 7:32PM, April 13, 2009
(online)
posts: 199
joined: 3-7-2007
Puff_Of_Smoke
I believe that we are technically polluting it by living by technology and keeping people who would usually die off in the wild alive but that technology is our edge over evolution, if anything. We use it to survive, we succeed.

I think the ability to create and use new technologies is a sign of an evolving brain. Evolution doesn't have to be physical body enhancements, it includes the ability to overcome bad traits through technology.

I saw the video of the women jumping into the polar bear cage at the zoo in Germany, and I did think to myself, “They shouldn't even rescue her. Just let natural selection do it's work”.

You know what I think is the worst thing to hit evolution? Love. Loving people despite them being a genetic mess, with horrible deformities, diseases, and just plain bad genes, and procreating with them. Not that I hate love. I love love. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it's horrible.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
bravo1102 at 6:13AM, April 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
Darwin awards. “A Chronicle of Enterprising Demises
Honoring those who improve the species…by
accidentally removing themselves from it!”

The German lady who wanted to pet the polar bear should be a runner up.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

Margaret Sanger is best understood as someone who bought into the eugenics pseudo science and the perversion of Darwin known as Social Darwinism because such beliefs were quite common at the turn of the 20th Century. Reading the explanations of such things are entertaining especially when they drag out the Bible. Scripture trumps evidence.

Modern genetics has made a mockery of such beliefs.

Beliefs which evidence proves wrong. But people believe in weird things and they cannot be dissauded regardless of evidence because they this is what they believe in. Cognitive Dissonance. Ignorant Idiots on Parade.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
kyupol at 7:00AM, April 14, 2009
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
When I was younger, I used to believe in the idea that the weak, the infirmed, etc. don't deserve to live and that people need a license from the government in order to be able to procreate.

Its because I meant well. I wanted the human race to be better in the future. It sounds good enough.

And I used to say to myself “If God really exists, why does he create people who are mentally retarded and have chronic diseases and it makes them miserable! God doesn't exist! And if he does exist he is an evil demon!!!” (I used to think of God as a separate external being but now I'm sort of leaning on the idea that God lives within every living creature in the universe).

…Until I realized that people are born with defects because living this life is something that provides them an opportunity to evolve themselves spiritually.

You are on this planet because of a need for you to learn certain lessons that you need in order to evolve your spirit until it reaches a point in where you will no longer need a physical body.

Because face it: a physical body is ALWAYS limited and imperfect no matter what. I don't care if you're the prettiest man or woman on earth. Can you fly? Can you exist in multiple places at the same time? Why do you need a car (or any external form of mechanical transport) to get from point a to point b? Why can't you go through a wall? Why is it that you cannot have babies because you're a man? Why is it that you tend to be physically weaker (generally speaking) if you're a woman? Why do you grow old? Why can you only move so fast? Why does your eyes hurt when you stare at the sun?

Its because you are limited and imperfect if you have a physical body.

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
megan_rose at 8:34AM, April 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 199
joined: 3-7-2007
I've often wished that people had to earn their reproductive abilities, not for any genetic reasons, but because I work at the news, and there is so much child abuse and neglect and fucking stupid parenting because two evil, stupid people can bump uglies and make a kid they don't want.
My mom is a nurse in the baby ward at the hospital, and sees so many women who didn't want kids, but had them anyways, and the new baby goes home to join the other three that are already neglected.
And I guess earn is the wrong word. I suppose I mean “prove you're not a total douche before you can have kids”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
bravo1102 at 10:59AM, April 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
You need a license to drive a car. The process to adopt a pet is often exhaustive. Yet anyone can bring a new human into the world and become a parent.

Couldn't we at least mandate sending prospective parents to something akin to driver's ed?

What I've wondered is that to us, people with disabilites and the like are miserable. Yet many times they are cheery and happy when you sit down and talk to them. Maybe they're the lucky ones and our higher functioning brains and bodies are really the curse. They exist to test us, to remind us how fortunate we are and how much we can give to others. Just like that crippled Neanderthal who was cared for by the rest of his tribe?

Once upon a time our species let nature take its course and put the less than healthy children on a hillside and walk away. But there were always those who cared for their children. We've changed and now nearly uniformly take care of those less fortunate than ourselves. Our species is not alone in this. We assume that nature is far more cruel than how animals really behave.

No species has ever gone extinct because it evolved to be stupid. It fit its enviornment and when that enviornment was changed they became extinct. It was the introduction of a predator or the introduction of a foreign species it couldn't compete with. I'm still trying to figure out how mammal-like animals preevolved dinosaurs but didn't dominate the planet until after the dinosaurs were gone. Maybe we're not as fit as we think we are.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ipokino at 11:27AM, April 14, 2009
(offline)
posts: 161
joined: 2-25-2007
I do not believe that in the U.S. there is any sort of Constitutional garrauntee of a right to procreate. And in fact, our founding fathers probably would have addressed the issue had the world been a bit smaller place back then.
I am a total libertarian, but the fact is, procreation which causes a baby to be born into a situation that is horrible, abusive, unwanted, or even unsanitary…is actually the mother initiating a force against her child and voiding the implied contract she and the father made when they started the baby. I have thought long and hard on this and believe that no child should be made without a literal legal contract spelled out between the parents and the unborn–specifying the conditions and the legal responsibilities and penalties due the child if said contract is voided.

Bet there would be a LOT less unplanned, unwanted pregnacies then!!! First time a child sues mom and pop for breach of contact because they were alkies would put the word out!!!

Also, there could be education clauses ect… kind of an elegant solution…
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:02PM
megan_rose at 1:22PM, April 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 199
joined: 3-7-2007
Unfortunately, outside of removing ovaries and testes, only to be given back upon proof that you would be a good parent, there would be no way to police that. Everyone comes pre-equipped with all the means to procreate.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:59PM
Product Placement at 1:37PM, April 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
bravo1102
Couldn't we at least mandate sending prospective parents to something akin to driver's ed?
As novel as the idea may sound, it would never work. What if the expecting parents fail the test? Do you force them to abort? Do you take the child, once it's born and throw it into a adoption agency?
ipokino
no child should be made without a literal legal contract spelled out between the parents and the unborn–specifying the conditions and the legal responsibilities and penalties due the child if said contract is voided.
Which would send the birth rate of any country adopting this policy plummeting to the ground. In matter of generations the population would reach unsustainable levels, leaving it free to be claimed by “less sophisticated” nations that were spared from such madness of thought. And no form of legal documents can stop binge drinking teenagers getting it on, a broken condom or rape victims finding themselves impregnated by the assault. You can't prevent unplanned pregnancies, short of forcibly sterilizing every individual that hits puberty once you've done harvesting a sufficient amounts of sperm and egg samples for artificial insemination. I don't see a world like that to be very libertarian.
megan_rose
Unfortunately, outside of removing ovaries and testes, only to be given back upon proof that you would be a good parent, there would be no way to police that. Everyone comes pre-equipped with all the means to procreate.
What she said.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
Hyena H_ll at 4:57PM, April 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,568
joined: 11-13-2008
ipokino
I do not believe that in the U.S. there is any sort of Constitutional garrauntee of a right to procreate.
In the US, the 14th amendment to the constitution protects reproductive rights. Currently (and I say this because these laws are argued and contested daily) it is not within the power of the government (or the Church, or anyone- no matter how smart they are, or think they are) to decide who can and should procreate. It's the same amendment that protects a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. (Double-edged sword, eh?)

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:52PM
BffSatan at 7:36PM, April 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
Humans have long ago stopped a naturual evoloution, we now evolve through our technology so we have no need for naturual evoloution, we're quickly becoming more powerfull then any naturual force, soon we shall even defeat death itself. There is no need to be worried about polluting the gene pool because we are a species at war with mortality and we are winning.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:20AM
bravo1102 at 5:21AM, April 15, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
Product Placement
bravo1102
Couldn't we at least mandate sending prospective parents to something akin to driver's ed?
As novel as the idea may sound, it would never work. What if the expecting parents fail the test? Do you force them to abort? Do you take the child, once it's born and throw it into a adoption agency?

Actually in NJ something similar is done by Dyfs (Division of Youth and family Services) When children are taken out of the home for one reason or another, one option is parenting classes. So it is already done.

Does it work? It works as well as Driver's Ed turns out capable drivers or schools turn out critical-thinking, intelligent people. I am being somewhat facetious. It is better than nothing just like re-hab is better than nothing for substance abuse.

You realize that H.G. Wells dealt with technology taking over from natural Selection with his article on humans in the year One Million? (as well as the Morlocks and Eloi) Huxley was better with a tale about Humans being immature chimpanzees. We fulfill our evolution and become wild, incontinent, hairy, promiscous, monkeys hanging from the chandelier.

That also describes the last party I saw photographs from on a friend's Facebook page.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Bittenbymonk at 7:47AM, April 15, 2009
(offline)
posts: 422
joined: 1-6-2008
bffsatan
Humans have long ago stopped a naturual evoloution, we now evolve through our technology so we have no need for naturual evolution, we're quickly becoming more powerfull then any naturual force, soon we shall even defeat death itself. There is no need to be worried about polluting the gene pool because we are a species at war with mortality and we are winning.

Now that's a rather uninformed point. Let's start with the point that as long as human beings reproduce sexually, we evolve naturally, it's the way to go with all this random selection of gametes and whatnot- so any method short of cloning will, in one way or another, produce the gradual change in our species that we recognise as evolution. Secondly, I believe that Hurricane Katrina, the boxing day tsunami, every single violent volcanic eruption and not to mention earthquakes porve that we ae pretty much at nature's mercy- we're only around because nature hasn;t flat out gotten rid of us yet.

Now, as for the defeat of death, I think it's just a little bit early to call that one, maybe it would be better to say that we're close to changing the definition of death- say, when an earthquake destroys the harddrive that we keep our conscious minds in, that might be considered death in the future. And as for a species at wa with mortality and winning, well, that's just silly! If we somehow manage to beat death to the ground then chancs are we have a population explosion leading to mass starvation and ultimately a war for space, resources and other commodities, we'd end up killing eachother one way or another. when we sart winning the war against death we'll all know it, because people will probably start killing eachother more. Nothing lasts forever, an insignificant race of sentient monkeys doesn't transcend this rule.

Now, looking at all the points put forward, it's probably self evident that w're going to lead our society into a disease riddled mess- at least until we start utilizing gene therapy, but then again, an already suffering economy can't support that, let's not even get started on the economic implications of this issue.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
lothar at 2:43PM, April 15, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
this was a very hot topic .. about 100 years ago
Eugenics


Bittenbymonk
… such genetic diseases as Haemaphelia, Huntingtons, sickle cell anaemia and other general gentic faults ….
sickle cell anaemia is actually an evolutionary adaptation , it is thought to protect against malaria or something

i think we,ve passed the point where genes matter so much . we are now in cultural devolution
a movie that illustrates this well is “Idiocracy” , a documentary from the future

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Bittenbymonk at 4:13PM, April 15, 2009
(offline)
posts: 422
joined: 1-6-2008
lothar
“Bittenbymonk” Said:
… such genetic diseases as Haemaphelia, Huntingtons, sickle cell anaemia and other general gentic faults ….

sickle cell anaemia is actually an evolutionary adaptation , it is thought to protect against malaria or something

ah yes, that is found to be the case in people who are heterozygous for sickle cell, for the people who have the homozygous genotype that is necessary to actually make a person suffer from the full blown disease they, well, die. kind of a double edged sword but the point still stands.

Brawndo- it has what plants crave. you know you can actually BUY brawndo now? crazy stuff. But hey, I welcome the day that I can buy a goat from costco.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
bravo1102 at 6:24AM, April 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
bittenbymonk
Secondly, I believe that Hurricane Katrina, the boxing day tsunami, every single violent volcanic eruption and not to mention earthquakes porve that we ae pretty much at nature's mercy- we're only around because nature hasn;t flat out gotten rid of us yet.

Trilobytes and dinosaurs were very successful in their day too but them there mass extinctions from things that cannot be controlled by we humans. Also we're to the point where we can royally mess up the planet all by ourselves. If you go back to the 1960s many writers didn't see a civilization with the Bomb lasting into the 21st Century without having a nuclear war along the way.

In the 1970s there was the population bomb, then the coming Ice Age. Now it's global warming. The population bomb and the Nuclear Bomb are still there just waiting… Either we will adapt genetically and/or use our technolgy to help it along or we will be extinct.

Natural Selection isn't done with us yet and it never will be unless we create a totally non-natural world where we control all aspects of reproduction like Huxley's Brave New World. It is a sign of the same anthro-arrogance that inspired eugenics.

With modern knowledge of genetics science cannot guarantee that some latent gene will not negatively effect any child. So eugenics is ridiculous until we can totally rewrite our own genetic code. As a sci-fi writer I've imagined it and the results are not necessarily pretty as it could only occur with a re-writing of human behavior as well.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Product Placement at 9:29AM, April 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Theoretically though, eugenics is just another name for selective breeding. We've been doing that for thousands of years with lots of animals like dogs, cats, cattle, pig, horses and more. We've drastically reshaped some of these animals to suit our need and we've done it by breeding together the animals with the desirable traits while getting rid of all the undesirable ones. On paper, eugenics is possible, just not efficient.

… then there's also the morality issue.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
Orin J Master at 2:31PM, April 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
it is impossible to apply darwinian practices to a sentient species. the strong will help ensure the weak's thriving rather than leaving them to die, and the overall population will increase as a result.

even if it's only to ensure more meat for the guns. business as usual.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Ryan_Scott at 5:31PM, April 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 309
joined: 10-5-2008
Funny you should mention the Darwin awards… I knew a guy when I was at art school who actually made it into the darwin awards.

He, and a drunk female friend, decided to ride a wheelie bin down the steepest street in the world (dunedins Baldwin street)… it spun around and he fell off, she however was inside and crashed head first into a trailor and was killed instantly.

You'd think an event like that would slow a guy down… but 2 years later he took too much acid and fell into a river, hitting his head on a rock and causing himself brain damage…

What a dick head
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:15PM
bravo1102 at 6:15AM, April 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
Orin J Master
it is impossible to apply darwinian practices to a sentient species. the strong will help ensure the weak's thriving rather than leaving them to die, and the overall population will increase as a result.

even if it's only to ensure more meat for the guns. business as usual.

We are not the only species that does this so are the species that do this sentient? Don't think that just because we do it and have self-awareness that other species don't do it without apparent self-awareness. (Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee and other works on human evolution that describe just how non-special we are as a species in the animal kingdom)

Product Placement eugenics would be ineffienct as for every successful selective breeding experiment there is one that wasn't. Do we really want to waste human lives trying to improve our species when we know that many previous attempts at selective breeding were disasters? Do we really want humans that are like certain very fragile pure-bred dogs and cats? Or the Spanish Hapsburgs? Inbreeding (which is what eugenics will probably lead to to keep the strain pure) will bring all the nasty latent genetic diseases show up a lot more; like the genetic diseases in the royal families of Europe. The only way to do eugenic in breeding would be like the Pharoahs of Ancient Egypt and have lots of wives/concubines which added enough genetic diversity that the children could marry each other.

Now that's throwing our morality out the window. Will there eventually be a backlash against all this invitro playing around? When it goes too far I'm sure there will be and then eugenics and genetic manipultion will probably become so unpopular that it will be effectively stopped. Especially when true genetic manipulation becomes possible and the first clones appear.

And who decides waht direction we go in? Or maybe some feminist decides to create a sub species of females that don't need males to naturally reproduce? What if too much genetic manipulation destroys the pre-existing mutations in our genes that make certain things possible? Well we have panimmunity but the Y chromosome doesn't take often in a zygote… The law of unintended consequences? Oops we wiped out cancer but all humans are albinos…
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Product Placement at 7:38AM, April 17, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Just because I mentioned it doesn't mean I'm for it. I agree that Eugenics is a flawed logic.
But selective breeding none the less didn't just produce fragile looking animals that look pretty or extra fluffy. They've also produced sturdy hunting dog with extra keen sense of smell. And when we look away from simple pets and look at farm animals we can see the more practical side of selective breeding. Horses, Pigs, Sheep, and Cows have all been over time altered to benefit us. A modern day sheep creates a way too thick fur for it to be comfortable, a cow produces ludicrous amounts of milk just for 1-2 calfs, horse breeding is carefully monitored with the goal to produce only the sturdiest offspring and so on.

Of course, just like you said, in order for selective breeding to work, you need to discard all the offspring that don't produce the desired traits. Hence why I mentioned the morality issue.

The Golden retriever and Dalmatians are good examples of selective breeding ending up with inbreeding problems. You need to start with a really large genetic pool before attempting to custom make a new breed.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
mlai at 8:04PM, April 19, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
The perceived need for eugenics is basically a response to the result of humans creating an environment for themselves where they can indulge in the luxury of helping those “less fortunate” at extra expense.

In a primitive basic subsistence society, those with physical/mental handicaps or lingering disease (such as diabetes, etc) will simply die, or not be attractive enough to find any mates. It has nothing to do with morality. But once living standards rise, then society can afford to play the morality card and help those individuals.

There is no need for eugenics, actually. To “enforce natural selection,” merely abolish all medical science. Nature will take care of the rest. “The science of eugenics” is simply a way for the rich and powerful to trim away the expenses of socialism without having it affect themselves; their money and position will allow them to afford medical care for themselves, but they can righteously withhold it from the poor (who are not less fit than they are, in nature's eyes).

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
Polkster at 2:27AM, April 20, 2009
(online)
posts: 174
joined: 2-9-2009
We're not polluting anything; fact is society is changing as technology allows us to better fulfill our developmental potential.

IQ exams are calibrated in a way that 100 remains the average, however that 100 has increased 10 points every decade. That is not to say Socrates, for instance, was a moron by today's standards, but rather the population of people whose intelligence is comparable to Socrates has increased greatly. Moreover, the nature of our collective intelligence has also changed.

The information age, television, the internet, even radio, provide significantly more stimulation for developing minds than ever before, and while our gene pool may remain technically static, the elasticity of our brains will allows progress to continue.

Think about it like the wheel; first it's a square, then a hexagon, then a dodecagon, eventually we reach the final round form, has progress halted? It can't get any rounder, can it? Whereas the Romans may have only had carts and carriages, we have cars with tires, tanks with treads gliding across sets of spinning cylinders, even propellers are a modification of the wheel.

Physical elasticity of our brains is what's essential, not further mutation. Nearly every human being has the capacity to be a Socrates, and in a hundred more years, perhaps an Einstein.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
ozoneocean at 2:43AM, April 20, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
Good post Mlai!

—————–

Polkster, the whole idea of IQ is flawed. The development of the wheel wasn't as a result of people getting smarter, it was simply a process of building on earlier knowledge. Your assertion that anyone has the capacity to be a Socrates is true, but that's always been the case.
If the knowledge was there and the environment and conditions were conductive to learning and research, they'd have had tanks and rockets in Socrates time, or before. Even cavemen had the capacity to learn.

—————–
But perhaps that's what you mean… in a way? That the potential is always there, it just takes the knowledge, and that “IQ” is not some innate intelligence limit, but a person's sum of knowledge coupled with their learning aptitude?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
Polkster at 7:24AM, April 20, 2009
(online)
posts: 174
joined: 2-9-2009
IQ exams are not a “knowledge sum”. Though IQ is flawed and controversial and whatnot, it has been a fairly reliable intelligence measure. Maybe a 140 person isn't all that much smarter than a 135, or maybe the 135 is smarter and this shows the flaw of the process, a 180 will undoubtedly be more intelligent than a 90. It correlates well enough that it's remained an intelligence measure for over a century (or two or however long).

The wheel was a metaphorical example, I know it wasn't developed from a square, but way to miss my point entirely.

The wheel was most certainly a result of people getting smarter. Societies that created the wheel have consistently been more advanced than those that have not, even in fields that have nothing to do with carving round things that roll. Again, it's societal evolution, not personal. The Aboriginal Australians never created the wheel, Europeans did, we saw how that clash ended. Is that to say Aboriginals are inherently stupid? No. You could transplant one into European society, from birth, and the physical elasticity of its mind will be more than likely capable of reaching an intelligence level that's above the European average. The Greeks had one Socrates, the modern West has many, the Aboriginals had none. It's cumulative societal intelligence based on society's ability to foster intellectual development.

And this isn't philosophical jargon either, I'm talking physical brain development. Experiments with labratory mice have shown that those who are more stimulated throughout their early lives will have denser, and thus heavier, brains than those that weren't and preform better in various forms of intelligence testing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
bravo1102 at 7:31AM, April 20, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
Eugenics is part of the fallacy of Social Darwinism.

However many species care for those members of their less fortunate than themselves. Why do humans care for the aged? Why not just let them die? Throw them out of the igloo onto that ice flow? Yet for every example of that there is another where they are cared for as well as those with dementia, retardation etc.

When a culture has the luxury to care for those less fortunate they always have. It's not just specifically more fortunate individuals coming up with some reason to do it to make them feel better. That doesn't quite explain the communal cultures where those less fortunate are still cared for using communal resources as opposed to some elite trying to assuage their guilt. Human communities care for those less fortunate. It usually the elites who try to get rid of them. I'm talking the gamut from Pacific Islanders to Russian villagers and Sumer to Victorian Europe.

It's a family/tribe/village/town/city/civilization thing.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 8:23AM, April 20, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,115
joined: 1-2-2004
Polkster
but way to miss my point entirely.
A statement more appropriate to yourself in this instance. Did you see the part of my post bellow the line? I'd say we are in agreement.
-IQ tests have the problem that they bias some aspects of intelligence over others. Rather than a pure measure of “intelligence” they measure it in terms of cultural integration.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved