Idiocracy, Nazism, and Genetic Engineering

Actually, we (especially in the developing world; studies have shown that in almost all species those under the heaviest stress reproduce the most, probably as a mechanism to make sure that some of the offspring can survive. Increasing the quality of life in the developing world should make its population stabilize.) are reproducing a lot less than we used to. The world's population is close to plateauing. (The European population is shrinking and the US is stagnant, or at least would be if it weren't for immigration.)



I remember reading something by some prominent scientists saying that intelligence is as much as 80% genetic. That 20% is still very important though.


IQs are rising, but this is probably because children are being better educated in the types of intelligence that are tested. I'm sure that other types of intelligence more necessary in more primitive societies are probably diminishing.

Environmental factors are quite important too. This includes improving nutrition and reduction of environmental toxins. For one thing, even low levels of Lead in the blood stream can decrease a child's IQ by about 5 points, and it also makes people more prone to violence. It is possible that the rise in IQ is due almost entirely to moving to unleaded gasoline (and getting rid of lead paint, ect).



Jews were actually considered an intellectual elite (about tied with Greeks) since Ancient Roman times. I'd expect the tradition of deep study of the Torah before reaching adulthood is important here.



It may also be worth noting that many genes associated with genius are also associated with mental illness. Weeding out specific weaknesses may be weeding out potential strengths.
 
Evolution isn't working properly. We have rednecks with a dozen kids and proffesors with none. The government needs to step in and make sure that the breading is done in a way that benifits the people. We could get rid of genetic dissorders, we could make people smarter. We could make people less likly to use dope. We could make humanity much better in just a few generations.
People don't need to be breaded. You can have them plain.
 
Memes rule; genes drool. The age of evolution-as-we-know-it is almost over. Already, people are working on "repairing" genes in embryos. If people 500 years from now want kids genetically predisposed to intelligence, they'll order up the appropriate genetic tinkering to get it.

That is, if there ARE any people left by then. Hopefully, the robots won't want to take all our ecological niches away, though they probably easily could.
 
It may look like we're evolving away from 'intelligence', but (if anything) we're evolving away from the urge to not have children. And we've always been evolving that way, because we're the product of animals who didn't resist the urge to procreate.

intelligence seems to be way less genetically determined than generally and previously thought anyway...

it's more of a phenotypical trait.
 
If you consider other life forms besides humans, the answer becomes clear.

Instead of humans, consider insects. Insects comprise about 90% of the planet's animal biomass.

Rampant breeding by the dumb is not a problem--it's a solution. When you don't have anything in the brains department, the only way you can compete is with sheer numbers.
 
If you consider other life forms besides humans, the answer becomes clear.

Instead of humans, consider insects. Insects comprise about 90% of the planet's animal biomass.

Rampant breeding by the dumb is not a problem--it's a solution. When you don't have anything in the brains department, the only way you can compete is with sheer numbers.

that's so beyond the actual discussion here i had to laugh... :crazyeye:
 
Well, if it's true for all living things, why should it be considered a problem with humans? Somebody has to collect my garbage every week, and I'm pretty sure a guy with a degree from Harvard isn't gonna be willing to do it.
 
Hopefully, the robots won't want to take all our ecological niches away, though they probably easily could.
Screw humans, robots are the future!
 
there's a paradox in the Nazi eugenics program - how smart are sheep? They wanted to produce "better" human beings who would follow orders, not intellectual rebels who would think for themselves.
 
Well, if it's true for all living things, why should it be considered a problem with humans? Somebody has to collect my garbage every week, and I'm pretty sure a guy with a degree from Harvard isn't gonna be willing to do it.

Out of curiosity what's your job?
 
When you're working a server room and one of the boxes in rack 43 breaks down, I'm the guy you call on the phone to get a tech dispatched.

My job is to put you on hold and ignore you for 20 minutes, then send out the tech. :)

Edit: I think I make less a year than the average garbage man, by the way.
 
intelligence seems to be way less genetically determined than generally and previously thought anyway...

it's more of a phenotypical trait.

Well, it's genetically determined to a heavy degree. It's just really complicated. It's probably not quickly selected for.
To counter AL, the children of rednecks can be geniuses, if they're raised to be geniuses. It's our culture which is limiting intelligence as well as our genes. But culture is the 'low hanging fruit' if we want to boost humanity's intelligence further.
 
The main premise behind Idiocracy is that there was no market for genetic engineering and that people would be more interested in viagra upgrades than genetic engineering or super-AI... I highly doubt that.
 
Is it available on line? Because, although I am not a Biologist, my understanding is that the smaller the population is, the faster it evolves.

Not a biologist either, but once upon a time I did some research on mathematical population models which is slightly relevant.

It's a bit more complicated than that, no simple relationship between the size of a population and how fast it evolves. Genetic diversity will tend to increase faster in a larger population (more individuals means more mutations and more chances for different genetic combinations to occur, and a widespread species that lives in slightly different environments is more likely to display significant local adaptive variations). But the "weeding out" part of natural selection can work much faster if a population is smaller.

A species that exists in small numbers under stable conditions for a long time is not subjected to much evolutionary pressure (it's doing fine the way things are) nor does it get much new genetic variation to feed any selection process.

All else being equal, the "fastest" way to evolve would be for the population to follow a long-term boom-bust cycle: Each cycle consists of a long period of stable conditions which permit the species to have a large population (collecting new mutations and spreading them around in modest numbers, etc) followed by a period when conditions change (climate gets worse, new predators appear, whatever) so that life becomes hard and most of the species dies off, while individuals with whatever new traits turn out to be useful have an advantage in surviving and spreading their genes to the next generation.
 
My opinion is that from a strictly physical point of view eugenics is already taking place anyway, and will be inevitable in the next decades. When you have the means to prevent people being born with genetic/hereditary disease, and make sure every fetus is healthy, it's criminal to not do so. And just to confirm one more time: I'm not saying kill all people with Down's syndrome, I'm saying if you have the ability to detect it and fix it, do it.

Agreed. I'd be pretty pissed off if I was born with no arms and legs, and that could have been prevented. Of course, my opinion would change if I was then given super robotic appendages.

Evolution isn't working properly. We have rednecks with a dozen kids and proffesors with none. The government needs to step in and make sure that the breading is done in a way that benifits the people. We could get rid of genetic dissorders, we could make people smarter. We could make people less likly to use dope. We could make humanity much better in just a few generations.

That started out making some kind of sense and then you lost me when you wanted to breed people not to make particular lifestyle choices.
 
That started out making some kind of sense and then you lost me when you wanted to breed people not to make particular lifestyle choices.

Nah, it could probably be argued, that if we were able to breed smarter people they'd be less likely to make stupid choices...
 
Nah, it could probably be argued, that if we were able to breed smarter people they'd be less likely to make stupid choices...

You can't objectively say that certain decisions are stupid. That is partly because we can't really define intelligence. But nevertheless, I might think that abortion is stupid, and so I'd want a child who was smart enough not to be pro-choice. Problems arise here... how can you guarantee freedom of action while predisposing your offspring to making certain types of decisions?
 
Back
Top Bottom