Poll: Genes and children Or why some should not have kids

[Minimizer110000]

She shouldn't be breeding with anyone- or raising any children. That kind of stupidity fuels '-isms' (e.g. rascism) of every kind and is too simplistic to work on any kind of scale. That reasoning will just lead to more violence between all members of the human race. The Spartans did that and it didn't work (in the long run). So did Nazi scientists and they are of the worst scum I have ever read about in my life.

 

[Navvan]

I agree completely with this.
(+50 renegade)
There's more than enough homo sapiens roaming this planet. The only problem is defining good genes. Appearance shouldn't have major influence on the decision, instead it should focus on genetical diseases and maximizing intelligence.

What is intelligence? How can you differentiate it from the kind of book-smarts acquired from school? What about people with different talents? If we focus on making a race of super-intelligent beings, who fixes the crappers, who is the tailor?

Our robot slaves of course.

As for what is intelligence: A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings?"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

All of those things are testable. Also simply selecting for intelligence does not mean there won't be a bell curve, and that the bottom end of the bell curve would be doing the less "intelligence based" jobs. Assuming we have not yet invented the robot slave. Note: I'm not saying that intelligence eugenics is a good idea, its not, but I thought I would answer your questions.

All right, fair answer, though I'll point out that out of all the "intelligent" people I've met, not one demonstrates every single one of the abilities you mention.

It is true that the number of people who would score high across the board would be few if any. However people will score differently than others creating a distribution curve which is all that is needed to implement artificial selection (Eugenics). This is done by simply taking the top X% and having them breed and repeating for all future generations. Perfect scores aren't required.

Right, then, if you keep taking the top percent, then what you do is reduce the bell curve. People become more and more alike (let us presume that you can only be *so* smart, and this process of selection is closing in on that point) until you basically have no bell curve. Then one child is born that has a super-human intelligence (raising the point that everyone else was homing in on) and the process starts again. But it still won't be that dramatic of a bell curve after this point, because the majority of humanity will still be incredibly similar, and therefore their children will also be similar, with the very few children of the super smart breeding more and more until there are enough to carry on existence on their own, and the rest are sterilised. But no bell curve, no plumbers.

Alright assuming there are no slave robot I have two rebuttals.

First being intelligent doesn't mean you are going to want to be a physicist, chemist, or other mentally demanding job. That has more to do with interest than intelligence. Some intelligent people are perfectly content working a factory job or labor intensive field.

Secondly the concept of jobs won't change simply because the intelligence of everyone on the planet is higher. Supply and demand will still exist. Who gets jobs will be dependent on education and networking like they currently do. Simply because an intelligent person wants a job that challenges them does not mean they will get one if there are not enough people employing. As they will still need to eat they will work jobs they do not like or learn to like jobs that they are able to get. Much like many people currently do.

 

[capper42]

It makes me laugh that this thread appears above the 'Do you believe in eugenics?' thread.

 

[orangeban]

I agree completely with this.
(+50 renegade)
There's more than enough homo sapiens roaming this planet. The only problem is defining good genes. Appearance shouldn't have major influence on the decision, instead it should focus on genetical diseases and maximizing intelligence.

What is intelligence? How can you differentiate it from the kind of book-smarts acquired from school? What about people with different talents? If we focus on making a race of super-intelligent beings, who fixes the crappers, who is the tailor?

Our robot slaves of course.

As for what is intelligence: A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings?"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

All of those things are testable. Also simply selecting for intelligence does not mean there won't be a bell curve, and that the bottom end of the bell curve would be doing the less "intelligence based" jobs. Assuming we have not yet invented the robot slave. Note: I'm not saying that intelligence eugenics is a good idea, its not, but I thought I would answer your questions.

All right, fair answer, though I'll point out that out of all the "intelligent" people I've met, not one demonstrates every single one of the abilities you mention.

It is true that the number of people who would score high across the board would be few if any. However people will score differently than others creating a distribution curve which is all that is needed to implement artificial selection (Eugenics). This is done by simply taking the top X% and having them breed and repeating for all future generations. Perfect scores aren't required.

Right, then, if you keep taking the top percent, then what you do is reduce the bell curve. People become more and more alike (let us presume that you can only be *so* smart, and this process of selection is closing in on that point) until you basically have no bell curve. Then one child is born that has a super-human intelligence (raising the point that everyone else was homing in on) and the process starts again. But it still won't be that dramatic of a bell curve after this point, because the majority of humanity will still be incredibly similar, and therefore their children will also be similar, with the very few children of the super smart breeding more and more until there are enough to carry on existence on their own, and the rest are sterilised. But no bell curve, no plumbers.

Alright assuming there are no slave robot I have two rebuttals.

First being intelligent doesn't mean you are going to want to be a physicist, chemist, or other mentally demanding job. That has more to do with interest than intelligence. Some intelligent people are perfectly content working a factory job or labor intensive field.

Secondly the concept of jobs won't change simply because the intelligence of everyone on the planet is higher. Supply and demand will still exist. Who gets jobs will be dependent on education and networking like they currently do. Simply because an intelligent person wants a job that challenges them does not mean they will get one if there are not enough people employing. As they will still need to eat they will work jobs they do not like or learn to like jobs that they are able to get. Much like many people currently do.

Fine, forget specific jobs, let's talk about classes. We have lower classes, middle classes and upper classes in todays society. Roughly speaking, the lower classes do "blue-collar jobs" (manual labour) and the middle "white-collar jobs" which tend to be jobs in offices, and jobs that require university degrees (note: this is very roughly speaking, I am aware there are exceptions). The upper class, well they do the really well paying jobs, or they're celebrities of some kind.

Now, since in our scenario here the intelligent are (presumably) the upper class, and are therefore treated as so. These people are told directly, you are (literally) the future of our nation, our hope of survival, and those other guys are dicks. Now, obviously, in this society where intelligence rules supreme, only the intelligent would be in charge (partly because the intelligent would only higher those they saw as superior, partly because the "non-intelligent" would likely try to change the policy) and also in the top jobs (which have the most political oomph and power). There we go, the intelligent are therefore the upper class in this scenario, and people born into the upper-class and instilled with the idea of their supremacy are very, very unlikely to want to dabble with the jobs of the other classes.

The other classes would be the "non-intelligent" in this scenario by the way.

But as the "non-intelligent" die out, the middle and lower classes die out. The upper class remains, and the upper class do upper class jobs, and because of the way they are told they are inherently superior (which they would be purely by the fact they wouldn't be sterilised) they would not want to do the jobs of those they were previously superior to (who are now dead.)

Hold on, I need to grab a pen, this is a kick-ass sci-fi setting.

 

[Outlaw Torn]

Eugenics is never a good idea, even though it is carried out in some form or another in most hospitals in the developed world. If you want to make the human race better then start off by fixing all of the other problems before you go around playing with your genes. There is more suffering because of poverty and famine than baldness or having the wrong coloured hair.

Plus sometimes it turns out that having an 'inferior' gene makes you better, such as sickle cell anaemia helping folks survive in malarial zones. And who gets to decide what is good and what is bad?

 

[Navvan]

Snip

This makes a few assumptions I did not and assumptions I would not agree with.

First: You assume only the upper-class would breed. I did not, as intelligence has no real correlation with class as opposed to education which does.

Second: You assume only the parents of the offspring would raise the offspring. A eugenics program would have to have the intelligent individuals reproduce far beyond what typical families currently do (to the point they would have to give children up for adoption) in order for an artificial selection process to be optimal.

Third: None of that address the still very real idea of supply and demand. People do jobs they do not like or see beneath them in order to not die. In your scenario everyone is capable of every job once educated, and they all can be educated in whatever job they wish. This means that most people will want the comfortable upper class jobs. This means that the supply for lower class jobs will decrease, and thus the wages for these jobs will increase in order to attract workers. The opposite will happen for the upper-class jobs. This will balance out until demand and supply is satisfied.

Fourth: You are assuming that the lower-class jobs will remain lower class jobs. In this scenario I would think a cultural shift would take place and the "lower-class" jobs could be seen as noble endeavors of self-sacrifice similar to military service or firefighters are seen today. It completely fits with the idea that everyone wants the cool upper-class jobs. Or as stated in my third point, the lower-class jobs end up paying more and become upper-class jobs.

 

[GraveeKing]

Until we let science with genetic engineering fix any serious problems - they should not be allowed, no. Someone who has full-sickle cell disease will either give full or half to their kids. Which is a lifetime problem and health risk, so I can see where she's coming from, the rest of us have the put enough into taxes for welfare as it is, so we don't need even more.

Then again, I say we should be focusing on fixing hereditary health problems as it is by researching DNA. But apparently it's too 'immoral' to muck about with the DNA of a kid who's going to have to live with a serious incurable health problem all his life if we don't.

 

[faspxina]

At first I thought little of it but as I?ve dwelled on it. Well I?m losing my hair at 26 and it does have an effect on me. It took me a long time to come to grips with it. Even now I hate thinking about it. It started me wondering can anyone think of a reason why people with bad gene should have children?

Because baldness is not the worst thing in the world. I would only approve prohibiting one from having children if there was an almost 100% chance of that child being born with a serious illness (e.g. aids).

 

[The Eyeball Moose]

Didn't Hitler want his own race of perfect people?

 

[rokkolpo]

Sure, if you're trying to Hitler the world.

Go right ahead.

 

[orangeban]

Snip

This makes a few assumptions I did not and assumptions I would not agree with.

First: You assume only the upper-class would breed. I did not, as intelligence has no real correlation with class as opposed to education which does.

Second: You assume only the parents of the offspring would raise the offspring. A eugenics program would have to have the intelligent individuals reproduce far beyond what typical families currently do (to the point they would have to give children up for adoption) in order for an artificial selection process to be optimal.

Third: None of that address the still very real idea of supply and demand. People do jobs they do not like or see beneath them in order to not die. In your scenario everyone is capable of every job once educated, and they all can be educated in whatever job they wish. This means that most people will want the comfortable upper class jobs. This means that the supply for lower class jobs will decrease, and thus the wages for these jobs will increase in order to attract workers. The opposite will happen for the upper-class jobs. This will balance out until demand and supply is satisfied.

Fourth: You are assuming that the lower-class jobs will remain lower class jobs. In this scenario I would think a cultural shift would take place and the "lower-class" jobs could be seen as noble endeavors of self-sacrifice similar to military service or firefighters are seen today. It completely fits with the idea that everyone wants the cool upper-class jobs. Or as stated in my third point, the lower-class jobs end up paying more and become upper-class jobs.

1. No, I said the intelligent breeders would become the upper class. This is because they are told they are the superior beings, they get the privilege of breeding, they are bred to think they are the upper class. Also, presumably the people capable of breeding are in charge (seeing as they are the most intelligence and in this country, intelligence is the most important characteristic). Therefore the intelligent drift towards positions of power and influence.

2. It doesn't matter who raises the child, provided they are intelligent, no matter who raises them they are told of their superiority.

3. My point was no-one would want to do the lower class jobs, because they belonged to the lower class. When one group in society thinks it's superior to another (and the government agrees) the superior group drifts to the top of society and the best jobs (which would be the politicians, the head journalists, the top doctors) are taken by them. In this scenario though, the lower class dies out, and the upper class (who see themselves as above the lower class workers, and therefore the jobs they do) would be unwilling to do those jobs. And though eventually these lower class jobs would probably be filled, even a few generations of no lower class workers would cause turmoil. (note: I have not mentioned pay cheques in this, it is much more about culture and shame than pay.)

4. Pretty much just see the third point.

 

[dead.juice]

I understand her point, but it's a very vain theory. Genes that make strong or smart people are more important than genes without aesthetic flaw.

 

[razer17]

I believe that there are some people who shouldn't have kids. But not because they have early balding or bad skin.

For reasons like they are scum who will not and won't raise a child properly. People like one of my cousins. Or half the parents of the douchebags in the English riots the other week, most of them are terrible parents and shouldn't have been allowed to conceive.

 

[Soods]

I.Q. is a crock of crap, because it doesn't measure a lot of things. Someone could have an incredible I.Q. but have the worst goddam eye-hand coordination in the world.

And that still links to my point about plumbers and stuff. In the book The Wind Singer, a persons place in society is determined by how well they score in an I.Q. esque test. But at the end

Spoiler

the people who get crappy test results, instead of doing the test, write about what they do actually know (baking, painting, paving-slab designging, ect.) because society doesn't just need people with high I.Q.s, it needs people of all kinds.

We are talking about reproduction and inherited features. There is evidence that intelligence can be inherited.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142841.htm
However, most of the skills are learned from experience, such as cooking and reading.

I'm not saying that the intellect ones are superior. But they will pass the brains onto their kids. Also: a smart man can learn how to cook, but it's a lot harder for a dumb cook to get smart.

 

[6037084]

Well a some time ago weak, ugly and dumb people couldn't mate because of a thing called natural selection but that is long gone. Anyways people with genetic diseases shouldn't be allowed to have children for obvious reasons but I see no reason why ugly people shouldn't be allowed to mate, besides we need ugly people so that beautiful people seem even more beautiful

 

[orangeban]

I.Q. is a crock of crap, because it doesn't measure a lot of things. Someone could have an incredible I.Q. but have the worst goddam eye-hand coordination in the world.

And that still links to my point about plumbers and stuff. In the book The Wind Singer, a persons place in society is determined by how well they score in an I.Q. esque test. But at the end

Spoiler

the people who get crappy test results, instead of doing the test, write about what they do actually know (baking, painting, paving-slab designging, ect.) because society doesn't just need people with high I.Q.s, it needs people of all kinds.

We are talking about reproduction and inherited features. There is evidence that intelligence can be inherited.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317142841.htm
However, most of the skills are learned from experience, such as cooking and reading.

I'm not saying that the intellect ones are superior. But they will pass the brains onto their kids. Also: a smart man can learn how to cook, but it's a lot harder for a dumb cook to get smart.

You know, I just spent some posts arguing with a dude about this, and I've come to the conclusion that intelligence eugenics leads to chaos. I can't be bothered rewriting it all out, but my posts are up there.

 

[Captain_Pancreas]

Really all she's doing is showing her own vanity. By 'purifying' a gene pool it grows stagnant, and that's not healthy. I personally think that people who aren't capable of looking after children, take that however you want, should perhaps have some kind of restriction, but that's my own frustrations at the number of times I see a parent come into my work allowing their child to run amok or just blatantly mistreating it. However I realise rationally its maybe not the best idea to ban the stupid breeding . But I mean, basing it on physical subjective traits is a whole other level. I mean I think it would be difficult to argue that the population becoming smarter on the whole is a bad thing, but arguing that we should eliminate all those with a crooked nose or who are below average height is just ridiculous. Also in terms of genetic diseases, where do you draw the line? I'm sure people would initially say at fatal conditions, but I'm sure that would change over time. Personally I'm diabetic. Maybe not a severe condition but it is one none the less. I feel the condition would be managable plus I have a lot of positive genes to pass on, a strong immune system and I don't like to sound arrogant but I am of a fairly high intelligence.

EDIT: While not severe, until modern times I wouldn't have survived to reproduce

 

[BelfastSpartan]

I had a similar conversation with a friend not long ago.

It sort of came to the same conclusion.

Basically we are where we are development wise because the strongest, fittest survived.
People with disabilites, etc would have been eaten/killed off so their genes wouldn't be passed on, only the survivors so the smartest, fittest, strongest could reproduce!

Now we have no natural predators and with the help of medicines, etc the human gene pool is a mess! Just look at Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer, etc

Sorry if that sounds dickish but it's true, it's how more or less every species has 'evolved' and gotten as far as it has.

So while I don't necessarily agree with the likes of bald people not being allowed to reproduce because losing hair has no correlation to the contirbution to the human race.

I would be ok with scumbags like criminals, etc not being able to reproduce.

 

[orangeban]

I had a similar conversation with a friend not long ago.

It sort of came to the same conclusion.

Basically we are where we are development wise because the strongest, fittest survived.
People with disabilites, etc would have been eaten/killed off so their genes wouldn't be passed on, only the survivors so the smartest, fittest, strongest could reproduce!

Now we have no natural predators and with the help of medicines, etc the human gene pool is a mess! Just look at Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer, etc

Sorry if that sounds dickish but it's true, it's how more or less every species has 'evolved' and gotten as far as it has.

So while I don't necessarily agree with the likes of bald people not being allowed to reproduce because losing hair has no correlation to the contirbution to the human race.

I would be ok with scumbags like criminals, etc not being able to reproduce.

But criminality and "evil" aren't genetic traits. Hell, they aren't even genes, they are results of circumstance. The son of a criminal won't become a criminal becuase of the genes he'd inherited (though they might well do because of the enviroment they are raised in).

 

[alandavidson]

Keeping people who have a line of mental illness, hereditary diseases, things like that should probably choose not to produce offspring. I don't know if we can ethically force them, though it would be nice in a lot of cases.

But for just being damn ugly? This lady is crazy.