3 ms·
Be wary of any talk of “superior” genes. We have no way to judge one set of genes relative to another even if we did understand genetics a lot better than we do
by wayoutthere 5y ago
Be wary of any talk of “superior” genes. We have no way to judge one set of genes relative to another even if we did understand genetics a lot better than we do. A genetic trait’s advantage can change depending on environmental factors, so any attempt to do so is effectively retreading debunked eugenic theory (a favorite pastime among some reactionary groups, particularly on social media).
- giantg2 5y agoThis can be true of things like personality traits and beliefs too - useful in one situation but not another. Society still punishes people who don't conform or rewards those who do. I think society will accept, or even push for, some level of genetic discrimination. I believe there was a recent article on HN about fetal genetic defect testing being used to make abortion decisions. The question is where should the line be, as it seems to already exist.
- natded 5y ago[flagged]
- wayoutthere 5y agoSuggest you read Guns, Germs and Steel if you want a more plausible explanation for that.
- dang 5y agoYou can't do this here. Since it's already a pattern, we've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fristechill 5y agoIt's not so much 'superior genes' as an absence of deleterious mutations. The brain requires the cooperation of the greatest number of genes (compared with other organs) in order in the develop in embryo. Since the industrial revolution infant death has thankfully dropped but it seems likely this improvement has had the side-effect of increasing the number of deleterious mutations and therefore also of decreasing the average IQ in Western populations.