4 ms·

If IQ is closely related to genetics and IQ is important for your society (two bold assumptions) you could argue for some eugenics and advantage high IQ people

by arkh 9y ago

If IQ is closely related to genetics and IQ is important for your society (two bold assumptions) you could argue for some eugenics and advantage high IQ people for reproduction. But as you say it could go really bad really fast. Especially if some of those high IQ genes are linked to some illness. For your question about why some people are focused on ethnicity? As usual: people's appearance are easier to discriminate upon so it makes it easy to make different people an out-group. But it's not just some supremacists doing it: the hardcore NA "diversity is good" groups focus on skin color. I'd argue they seem to be worse because it feels like for them all blacks are the same (African American) while the recent history of Africa should tell them how wrong it is.

zaarn 9y ago
It does not have to be genetics to show correlation. Sadly research in this area is sparse but we can establish that there will be some correlation; 1) Lack of proper nutrition is linked to lower IQ. This can be fairly easily explained in that the lack of resources will lead to less development in the brain, one of the most resource intensive organs in the body. 2) Certain ethnicity types are disproportionately poor (in the US). Lack of income generally also means that nutritional situation is less ideal. From 1 and 2 you can easily conclude there is very likely some correlation. Does that mean we should immediately deploy eugenics? Most likely not. As you mention, high IQ "genes" could be linked to something bad. IIRC they are linked to mental conditions like depression. (Which might lead to an interesting question: if we fix poverty, will people become more miserable on average because the average IQ goes up? It seems likely total misery will go down though) I also agree with your later statements, a lot of people tend to put all people with black skin into a single pot but there are some many fascinating different cultures and a fascinating history once you go beyond colonialism. I think a lot of people tend to forget that diversity isn't only skin color. Diversity goes deeper than skin and body.
primitur 9y ago
>argue for some eugenics and advantage high IQ people for reproduction See .. I find this line of thinking heinous. Why do you not instantly trip up when you type this?
- lopmotr 9y ago
  You should have a reason for that. Just feeling terrible might mean you're inside an echo chamber. Most people support eugenics in the form of outlawing incest because it can lead to faulty offspring. We also think treating neurodegenerative diseases is a good thing. Most parents also hope their kids will be smart. Or at least they don't hope for the opposite. Women don't like to have kids past 40 partly because of higher risk of Down's syndrome. And there's a test for that which can help them decide to abort the baby. All these things are us trying to make future humans smarter, mostly by eugenic techniques. Maybe you're thinking of actually killing people? That's not quite the same as selective breeding.
  - primitur 9y ago
    Those are all perfectly appealing reasons to step one iota closer to the reality described, which is that we should promote the DNA-privileged forward on the sexual reproduction stack. Which is something, I think, a little different to all the nice, shiny new things we're getting from CRISPR, et al., sure. Its the dangerous, vile things I care about: opening the door for selective breeding and clones, racial purism, etc. The technology is one thing; the ethics another tube entirely. Somethings things go boom, othertimes BOOM.
    - lopmotr 9y ago
      What's wrong with racial purism? We do it with dog breeding. What are the ethical problems?
      - scatters 9y ago
        Purebred dogs suffer a host of genetic diseases resulting in considerable suffering.
        lopmotr 9y ago
        I realize you're not the same person, but I'd still like to find out if people are against racial purity or eugenics for a real reason or just "because Nazis". The whole idea of eugenics is to reduce genetic diseases and suffering. Surely, if diseased children started to appear, the same program would stop them from reproducing and spreading it. Low intelligence humans already have considerable suffering too because modern economies don't have much use for them so they often live in poverty. Wouldn't it be nice to prevent that suffering by making them smarter? Indigenous people all over the world had racial purity before contact with outsiders. Is that a bad thing? Is it good that native Americans are essentially extinct by interbreeding? Should Americans try to mix their black and white people to reduce the racial purity of both, or is the current state of a little bit of mixing already the perfect balance? In that case, Japan, which is very racially homogeneous, must be suffering from too much racial purity and we should try to impose interbreeding on them for their own good.

by arkh 9y ago

zaarn 9y ago

It does not have to be genetics to show correlation. Sadly research in this area is sparse but we can establish that there will be some correlation; 1) Lack of proper nutrition is linked to lower IQ. This can be fairly easily explained in that the lack of resources will lead to less development in the brain, one of the most resource intensive organs in the body. 2) Certain ethnicity types are disproportionately poor (in the US). Lack of income generally also means that nutritional situation is less ideal. From 1 and 2 you can easily conclude there is very likely some correlation. Does that mean we should immediately deploy eugenics? Most likely not. As you mention, high IQ "genes" could be linked to something bad. IIRC they are linked to mental conditions like depression. (Which might lead to an interesting question: if we fix poverty, will people become more miserable on average because the average IQ goes up? It seems likely total misery will go down though) I also agree with your later statements, a lot of people tend to put all people with black skin into a single pot but there are some many fascinating different cultures and a fascinating history once you go beyond colonialism. I think a lot of people tend to forget that diversity isn't only skin color. Diversity goes deeper than skin and body.

primitur 9y ago

>argue for some eugenics and advantage high IQ people for reproduction See .. I find this line of thinking heinous. Why do you not instantly trip up when you type this?

lopmotr 9y ago
You should have a reason for that. Just feeling terrible might mean you're inside an echo chamber. Most people support eugenics in the form of outlawing incest because it can lead to faulty offspring. We also think treating neurodegenerative diseases is a good thing. Most parents also hope their kids will be smart. Or at least they don't hope for the opposite. Women don't like to have kids past 40 partly because of higher risk of Down's syndrome. And there's a test for that which can help them decide to abort the baby. All these things are us trying to make future humans smarter, mostly by eugenic techniques. Maybe you're thinking of actually killing people? That's not quite the same as selective breeding.
- primitur 9y ago
  Those are all perfectly appealing reasons to step one iota closer to the reality described, which is that we should promote the DNA-privileged forward on the sexual reproduction stack. Which is something, I think, a little different to all the nice, shiny new things we're getting from CRISPR, et al., sure. Its the dangerous, vile things I care about: opening the door for selective breeding and clones, racial purism, etc. The technology is one thing; the ethics another tube entirely. Somethings things go boom, othertimes BOOM.
  - lopmotr 9y ago
    What's wrong with racial purism? We do it with dog breeding. What are the ethical problems?
    - scatters 9y ago
      Purebred dogs suffer a host of genetic diseases resulting in considerable suffering.
      - lopmotr 9y ago
        I realize you're not the same person, but I'd still like to find out if people are against racial purity or eugenics for a real reason or just "because Nazis". The whole idea of eugenics is to reduce genetic diseases and suffering. Surely, if diseased children started to appear, the same program would stop them from reproducing and spreading it. Low intelligence humans already have considerable suffering too because modern economies don't have much use for them so they often live in poverty. Wouldn't it be nice to prevent that suffering by making them smarter? Indigenous people all over the world had racial purity before contact with outsiders. Is that a bad thing? Is it good that native Americans are essentially extinct by interbreeding? Should Americans try to mix their black and white people to reduce the racial purity of both, or is the current state of a little bit of mixing already the perfect balance? In that case, Japan, which is very racially homogeneous, must be suffering from too much racial purity and we should try to impose interbreeding on them for their own good.