3 ms·

Unfortunately the people who should consider breeding less will never consider this. And anyone on HN who is conscientious enough to actually stop reproducing b

Unfortunately the people who should consider breeding less will never consider this. And anyone on HN who is conscientious enough to actually stop reproducing because of this post will probably cause a net loss for society by doing so.

cmiles74 8y ago
AFAIK, there's no scientific basis for this argument, it strikes me as tone deaf and possibly racist or classist. While there is some basis on which to argue that genes may influence intelligence, it is certainly not the easiest or most direct way to influence intelligence: education, economic and social stability, general health, etc. If everyone on HN stopped having children, I am sure the world would get along just fine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-research-has-not-established-that-you-inherited-your-intelligence-from-your-mother/#71f3dcf76502 https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-r...
- darwin142 8y ago
  From your own source "While maybe half of our intelligence as we currently define and measure it is inherited." So the author admits that probably half of intelligence is inherited. Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics.
  - cmiles74 8y ago
    It sounds like you are arguing that manipulating genetics is an easier way to encourage intelligence then education and environment. Is that really what you are trying to say? Because that sounds ridiculous to me.
    - darwin142 8y ago
      Really? Care to point out which part of "Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics" implies that I think manipulating genes is easier than changing education or environment?
      - manicdee 8y ago
        The part where you claim that the easiest part to manipulate is the most important contributor to intelligence.
        darwin142 8y ago
        Considering I never even used the word manipulate your attempt at putting words in my mouth is even more see through than the previous reply's.
      - cmiles74 8y ago
        Yes, that's the quote that led me to my conclusion. ;-)
        darwin142 8y ago
        Which part? You seem to be having a massive failure of reading comprehension and I would love to help improve your ability to read.
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        darwin142 8y ago
        No go ahead and ban me. If offering to help improve someone's reading is a bannable offense but someone can blatantly misconstrue my words for political reasons then I have no interest in participating in such a forum.

cmiles74 8y ago

AFAIK, there's no scientific basis for this argument, it strikes me as tone deaf and possibly racist or classist. While there is some basis on which to argue that genes may influence intelligence, it is certainly not the easiest or most direct way to influence intelligence: education, economic and social stability, general health, etc. If everyone on HN stopped having children, I am sure the world would get along just fine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-research-has-not-established-that-you-inherited-your-intelligence-from-your-mother/#71f3dcf76502 https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-r...

darwin142 8y ago
From your own source "While maybe half of our intelligence as we currently define and measure it is inherited." So the author admits that probably half of intelligence is inherited. Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics.
- cmiles74 8y ago
  It sounds like you are arguing that manipulating genetics is an easier way to encourage intelligence then education and environment. Is that really what you are trying to say? Because that sounds ridiculous to me.
  - darwin142 8y ago
    Really? Care to point out which part of "Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics" implies that I think manipulating genes is easier than changing education or environment?
    - manicdee 8y ago
      The part where you claim that the easiest part to manipulate is the most important contributor to intelligence.
      - darwin142 8y ago
        Considering I never even used the word manipulate your attempt at putting words in my mouth is even more see through than the previous reply's.
    - cmiles74 8y ago
      Yes, that's the quote that led me to my conclusion. ;-)
      - darwin142 8y ago
        Which part? You seem to be having a massive failure of reading comprehension and I would love to help improve your ability to read.
        dang 8y ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        darwin142 8y ago
        No go ahead and ban me. If offering to help improve someone's reading is a bannable offense but someone can blatantly misconstrue my words for political reasons then I have no interest in participating in such a forum.