10 ms·

When you do this to human it is called eugenics, and, to put it mildly, it likely isn't going to come back into fashion. Surprisingly we do it all the time, on

• brohee 12y ago
  Last I checked, most people mated with a partner of their choosing. That you call it love and not "selection of the most desirable traits" doesn't change the facts ;-)
  • readerrrr 12y ago
    You are using the same mistake as most people when they associate the word eugenics with mass forced extermination of certain traits. Because of fear and certain individuals in the past. The word can be used in a modern context, where eugenics is performed voluntarily, on a very small population, and under scientific supervision for causes that benefit the entire humanity. The rest can live and love whoever they want. Genetic manipulation functionally falls in the same category, but it is better accepted because it doesn't have the negative history attached to it.
    • Dewie 12y ago
      It isn't voluntary for the offspring that are created through such efforts. Sure, that's not the case for procreation to begin with... but the difference is that these people would effectively be bred for a specific purpose. Then, to keep it voluntary, I guess we would lightly suggest to them at some tender age to consider going into field which requires high intelligence? Or do we not interfere at all, and just observe them from a distance (since you mention scientific supervision)?
      • crazypyro 12y ago
        Nobody has a voluntary choice in their birth and eugenics doesn't have to breed people for a certain position or job. It may be something as simple as egg/sperm analysis that calculates a favorable (in whatever way the technology designers determine that) gene sequence and then the child would be raised normally. Eugenics doesn't mean the decay of the moral fabric of society or the loss of basic ethics in research. Why is it so hard to imagine eugenics integrating into modern society? This fear is really surprising to me.
        • dkarapetyan 12y ago
          It's not surprising at all. Eugenics on a large scale is also know as population control and it elicits negative visceral reactions for good reasons. Large undertakings usually require some kind of central control and the history of such control is not positive at all. Now if the choice comes down to something between two individuals because technology makes it possible to make certain choices that's a different matter but even then you are treading in dangerous territory. Who gets access to the technology? How do you verify that the technology is safe? Is there a beta test period? Who gets to be a beta tester? Anyway the list is long and the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be for even these kinds of choices to be made between two individuals let alone at the population level. I find the idea in general just intuitively unappealing. Humanity can't breed itself out of the problems it is in. Being smart is simply not enough. Anything worthwhile requires hard work. So are you going to breed for hard work as well now? I don't see these scientists looking for those genes though.
        • judk 12y ago
          Its like you didn't even notice that World War II happened.
      • JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Why not treat them identically to any intelligent child born today? This doesn't have to be weird.
    • chriswarbo 12y ago
      > The word can be used in a modern context, where eugenics is performed voluntarily Relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMz_tK4Q6Qs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMz_tK4Q6Qs
    • pcrh 12y ago
      "Eugenics" is actually currently practiced, but described as pre-implantation diagnostics. This allows parents who are carriers of a deleterious mutation, such as that causing Tay Sachs Disease, to avoid having children with the condition.
    • theletterasdf 12y ago
      So what you're saying is that attractive women are all in on a eugenics conspiracy designed to wipe out white gamers who watch wolf sex cartoons?
  • socialist_coder 12y ago
    I would be more than happy to raise a child that was not genetically related to me if it's genes were "better".
    • Dewie 12y ago
      I notice your use of scare quotes. Is the state of the art advanced enough to make a judgement on whether or not a person is better at the genetic level than another person? I'm not just talking about some specific category or skill, but also as a well-rounded person. Because these people will have to live their own lives, and would be subject to whatever other traits that might arise when you try to optimize humans for some kind of skill. I at least don't think that the state of the art is so advanced that they can predict that optimizing for some specific trait might have some unforeseen consequences when it comes other, perhaps seemingly unrelated traits.
    • cscurmudgeon 12y ago
      Is the corollary that one should not raise less "better" children? If this what we come to practice as a species, I would definitely hope that a superior one wipes us out soon.
      • LLWM 12y ago
        If this is what we come to practice as a species, we are in fact replacing ourselves with something superior. And unless you hope for your children to never be as successful as you were, that's a good thing.
        • walterbell 12y ago
          For whose definition of "better" and "superior"?
          • LLWM 12y ago
            The parents of each individual child, obviously.
        • 12y ago
  • wolfgke 12y ago
    Unluckily at least in Germany highly educated people often produce less children than low educated ones.
    • ZenoArrow 12y ago
      The goal should be to help encourage the next generation to do something meaningful (to them), regardless of what advantages they had at birth.
      • aurelian 12y ago
        If country A makes and achieves its goal to give the next generation an average IQ of 130, and country B makes its goal to encourage the next generation to do something meaningful (to them), B will serve A before long.
        • ZenoArrow 12y ago
          I somewhat doubt it. Let's use something you're likely to be familiar with, smartphone apps... Now it's arguable that the skills required to develop a smartphone app implies a reasonable level of intelligence, yet look at any app store and you'll see huge numbers of uninspired, lowest common denominator shovelware. Does the world really need hundreds of todo apps? Do you really think people are driven to make those apps for anything greater than the "prestige" of being an app developer or a desperate attempt at making money? Compare and contrast with a society that values the outcome of the work rather than how book smart you need to be able to do it. For example nature conservation is pretty easy to understand how to do right, and there's a tangible lasting benefit. Guess it depends on what you view as a society worth having.
        • peterfirefly 12y ago
          Maybe. Or lots of people from country B will get into country A as "refugees", bring along their families, and have taxpayers in country A pay for them while they do what they can to be racist and criminal against native people from country A. It depends on the moral sensibilities of the A'ers.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• ZenoArrow 12y ago
  "Surprisingly we do it all the time, on animals, and we call it breeding. It is very successful" Breeding is successful in some sense, but certainly not without its issues. For example, by breeding pedigree dogs we've left them with a number of genetic defects that are hard to remove due to the reduced gene pool, e.g. Dalmatian deafness, Bulldog respiration, King Charles Spaniel syringomyelia, etc... Addressing the article, I find the idea of quantifiable intelligence to be one of the dumbest ideas we ever came up with. What does an IQ point mean, really? From my understanding, testing it basically boils down to using a specific subset of symbolic puzzles. Intelligence can be quantified numerically in the same way love can be quantified numerically, i.e. not at all, without losing the essence of what you're looking for. Also, intelligence by itself is not a goal in its own right, it's the purpose to which it's applied that matters. If super intelligent people exist, what would we have them do? The same things we do but faster? No thanks. Instead of wasting our time trying to group ourselves into categories, we should be looking to bring out the best of the talents we find in the people around us. That seems like a better goal than chasing a 1000 IQ person.
  • readerrrr 12y ago
    Breeding is successful in some sense, but certainly not without its issues. For example, by breeding pedigree dogs we've left them with a number of genetic defects that are hard to remove due to the reduced gene pool, e.g. Dalmatian deafness, Bulldog respiration, King Charles Spaniel syringomyelia, etc... I agree the research would have to be gradual and aware of those issues. I doubt dog breeders really care for those. Addressing the article, I find the idea of quantifiable intelligence to be one of the dumbest ideas we ever came up with. What does an IQ point mean, really? From my understanding, testing it basically boils down to using a specific subset of symbolic puzzles. Intelligence can be quantified numerically in the same way love can be quantified numerically, i.e. not at all, without losing the essence of what you're looking for. IQ can be measured, there are many tests that do so. More time you spend checking more accurate you can get. Not infinitely accurately but good enough. Also, intelligence by itself is not a goal in its own right, it's the purpose to which it's applied that matters. If super intelligent people exist, what would we have them do? The same things we do but faster? No thanks. That makes little sense. Speed is not a requirement for new research and discovery. Original though is. That is what we should strive for. Instead of wasting our time trying to group ourselves into categories, we should be looking to bring out the best of the talents we find in the people around us. That seems like a better goal than chasing a 1000 IQ person. Eugenics could do exactly that.
• cscurmudgeon 12y ago
  True. Humans are exactly the same as a lab rat ethically and in terms of biologically complexity.
  • Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    There's no good reason for whatever downvotes you're getting. The fact is the comment underscored by your sarcasm is correct: that breeding, alone, is not necessarily going to produce any super-intelligent human. The biology of intelligence is one we haven't come close to a deep understanding of. To glibly throw out "selective breeding" as a scientific approach to generating super-intelligent humans is, frankly, not a very scientific thing to do.
• logfromblammo 12y ago
  Eugenics was an attempt to subvert economics. As humans, we reward those traits we collectively find most desirable with additional resources. Parents with additional resources may choose to grant them as seed capital for their children, to have more children themselves, or to promote traits they find desirable in other people's children. Our species is currently directing its breeding efforts towards ruthless, unethical business managers and corrupt politicians. If we wanted geniuses, we would be paying people just for being smarter than the median. Instead, tuition is rising faster than inflation, and our smartest folks are often tremendously burdened with debt during their prime reproductive years, to the point that any children they may have are bound by their available resources rather than by their potential. We are selectively breeding ourselves. It just turns out that the rich assholes want humanity to be more like them. If smart people want to breed more geniuses, we're probably going to need to do it on a different planet, where intelligence will be more of a survival advantage. Just watch out for Khan.
  • judk 12y ago
    The smartest folks generally get scholarships.
    • logfromblammo 12y ago
      Scholarships are also given out based on criteria unrelated to intelligence or aptitude. Do you happen to know what proportion of all scholarship funding is allocated purely on the basis of academic strength?
      • JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Don't know, but I've heard that the average scholarship at our local University is not applied for. There are many small ones, with very specific criterion. One of my son's friends was surprised to win a scholarship, because he hadn't applied - the dean had applied for him!
• Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  Breeding really isn't the panacea you make it out to be. I skipped grades, have an advanced science degree, earn a lot in a job that requires above average intelligence, etc. My parents were both high-school dropouts, and my mother in particular was identified as being "slow" when she was younger (not below average in IQ, but on the very low end of it). On the other hand, I personally know very intelligent couples (one consisting of a pair who each individually are far more intelligent than I am) whose kids have also been "slow".
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • Humjob 12y ago
    What you're describing is 'regression to the mean.' Francis Galton noticed this effect when he was studying the traits of various genetically influenced traits. This doesn't invalidate the idea of eugenics. You can still modify the average of a trait over time in a given population in spite of any mean-regressing tendencies. It just happens a bit more slowly.
  • ozy23378 12y ago
    If you were significantly more intelligent than the mean, you would recognize the irrelevance of your anecdotes.