4 ms·
1. No. First, because we don't know how genetics really works. Second, because it violates an individual's freedom. 2. Genetic and social aren't separate thing
by andreyf 18y ago
1. No. First, because we don't know how genetics really works. Second, because it violates an individual's freedom.
2. Genetic and social aren't separate things, but parts of an evolutionary continuum. Google the Baldwin Effect. Yes, there are many theories. Read any book about evolutionary psychology.
3. No.
4. Citation, please.
5. No.
6. Yes, but not what you're thinking. No.
7. Stupid question.
8. Yes. None.
9. Nothing.
10. Nothing, none.
11. No. Market economics.
12. Evolution. That they aren't what they at first seem.
What a load of crap.
- mattmaroon 18y agoAgreed. A cursory examination of EP would answer a lot of these questions, and most of the rest are just kinda dumb. For instance, does anyone think IQ does not exist? IQ is just a test score. That's like saying 1600 doesn't exist.
- jonny_noog 18y agoAnd here I was thinking that the Baldwin effect was some kind of theory possibly resembling or in some way modelling the interactions between Alec Baldwin and his brothers.
- willchang 18y agoOn 11: Population Control. I'd argue that this is a specific instance in which market economics by themselves do not suffice to solve the problem -- unless you regard it as acceptable that miscalculations on the part of parents, such as having one too many kids, should result in one of the kids being allowed to starve to death years down the road. Probably the best solutions are going to involve lots of market incentives, and what they are going to be is what the question is asking.