Our society is sabotaging evolution!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LakAttack

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
533
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Please people don't miss the point of the thread (all joking aside). I was talking in terms of a successful capable human being and you can't for a second pretend that an intelligent medical doctor is no better for the longevity and capability of the human race than a low-iq welfare recipient with no future. That's how I'm determining success. I'm not saying that poor = dumb.

No, but it seems that you are saying poor = worthless to society. You seem to say the same type things in the illegal immigration threads. The flaw in your argument though, is that class and success do not equal "more superiorly evolved." It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. What you deem favorable positions (doctors, lawyers, computer programmers) are finite in number. To think that if all computer programmers died, no one from what you deem an unfavorable position (garbage man, farm hand, janitor) could rise into that position is both egotistical and unAmerican. People aren't poor because they are intellectually inferior. Are some poor people intellectually inferior? You bet. But I've met plenty of people in middle-management white-collar jobs that are as well.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
You may deny it but everyone here is saying poor = dumb, and rich = smart. Which is retarded because a rich kid with a silver spoon up his ass his whole life will be rich when he gets older, no matter what his intelligence is. Your father being a doctor doesn't mean sh!t. Intelligence has nothing to do with the amount of money you have, my parents were poor, I will have more succes than you, there goes your logic.
Well there is a genetic link to intelligence, so odds are that a doctor's kid will be smarter than a janitor's kid, if you had to place money on it.

That aside, there is a definite correlation between intelligence and money. If you think the average brick layer is as smart as the average fortune 500 CEO you're wrong. I'm talking averages here, so exceptions are irrelevant.

But really the point of this thread is not money in itself but a successful person. In terms of brute abilities being carried on in future generations - these including things like intelligence - from a superior capabilities perspective the human race is better off with smart successful people (such as doctors and CEOs of fortune 500s), and not welfare recipients and grocery store clerks. However, given the tendency of high births in low-end families vs. births in higher-class families this evolutionary enhancement is stunted.
 

radioouman

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2002
8,632
0
0
How about if the smart people of society need to be think of ways to use the dumb people more effectively, since we seem to be getting a lot more dumb people per the number of smart people.
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
(at least from optimal evolutionary speed).


Key statement.

We live within the ultimately tenuous confines of a technological womb. If all our technology was removed the infirm would die out within a couple of generations, the proverbial blink of an eye.

Based on your statements, I believe you're anthropomorphizing evolution. The process of Evolution does not care about IQ or societal worth.

We are bred to reproduce, nothing more.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: LakAttack
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Please people don't miss the point of the thread (all joking aside). I was talking in terms of a successful capable human being and you can't for a second pretend that an intelligent medical doctor is no better for the longevity and capability of the human race than a low-iq welfare recipient with no future. That's how I'm determining success. I'm not saying that poor = dumb.

No, but it seems that you are saying poor = worthless to society. You seem to say the same type things in the illegal immigration threads. The flaw in your argument though, is that class and success do not equal "more superiorly evolved." It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. What you deem favorable positions (doctors, lawyers, computer programmers) are finite in number. To think that if all computer programmers died, no one from what you deem an unfavorable position (garbage man, farm hand, janitor) could rise into that position is both egotistical and unAmerican. People aren't poor because they are intellectually inferior. Are some poor people intellectually inferior? You bet. But I've met plenty of people in middle-management white-collar jobs that are as well.
I take it that you believe that the average low-class person is intellectually capable of the same things the average higher-class is? Quite incorrect. And no I never said poor are worthless to society. "It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. " <- wrong. We are products of environment and genetic predispositions. To argue that the latter has no influence on the outcome of a person is flatly wrong. Are you denying any correlations between class and intellience?

 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
This has to be one the most assinine threads ever where do you wanna live China? what a snob are you serious? (ha ha just read the 3rd paragraph good I was worried about you)



 

radioouman

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2002
8,632
0
0
Originally posted by: EXman
This has to be one the most assinine threads ever where do you wanna live China? what a snob are you serious? (ha ha just read the 3rd paragraph good I was worried about you)

while this may be a thread that is insulting to some people it is a thread that is very interesting to think about and certainly has arguments for both sides at least this is a free place that we can discuss things like this have you ever heard of punctuation and sentances?
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
poor = dumb?

no.

poor + more children than you can afford to have educated == dumb

Thats not the point of this thread though, the point is that we are getting dumber as a species because poor people have more kids. Not that the actual actions of poor people are dumb. What about that thread of that idiot who might have knocked up his gf, he's now dumb, according to your logic, and he's kids will be dumb, again according to your logic. Might as well kill him now.

You may deny it but everyone here is saying poor = dumb, and rich = smart. Which is retarded because a rich kid with a silver spoon up his ass his whole life will be rich when he gets older, no matter what his intelligence is. Your father being a doctor doesn't mean sh!t. Intelligence has nothing to do with the amount of money you have, my parents were poor, I will have more succes than you, there goes your logic.

Pedantically, you're correct. Actual cognitive ability probably isn't massively effected by wealth or indigence. But I meant dumb in the sense that the children will be under educated and not well adapted for performing efficiently in our society. There is a very real correlation between poverty and lack of education.

The capitalistic result of this trend is subjugating the poor (as we do now to some extent) and getting rid of the superfluous (again as we do now to some extent).
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,040
14,718
146
Funny. This was proposed decades ago. Do a web search on "Eugenics."

It's an affront to individual liberty, and too Hilteresque to even think about. (Hitler was a firm believer in eugenics)
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
while this may be a thread that is insulting to some people it is a thread that is very interesting to think about and certainly has arguments for both sides at least this is a free place that we can discuss things like this have you ever heard of punctuation and sentances?

Heard of capitalizing your first word of a sentence? STFU this ain't a skool assignment bozo.
 

Analog

Lifer
Jan 7, 2002
12,755
3
0
not true, many of the top scientists I know came from poor backgrounds. Look at all the foreign PhDs, are you telling me they all came from middle class families? Not so. I'll bet most of them came from large poorer families. Just because you're poor, doesn't mean you're stupid.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Please people don't miss the point of the thread (all joking aside). I was talking in terms of a successful capable human being and you can't for a second pretend that an intelligent medical doctor is no better for the longevity and capability of the human race than a low-iq welfare recipient with no future. That's how I'm determining success. I'm not saying that poor = dumb.
Preachin' to the choir here, Skoorb. I think your ideas of forced sterilization may be a little strong though...
Naturally, there will be some who will argue that the scum in the gene pool deserve not only our protection (which I agree to somewhat, the Golden Rule is my life philosophy) but also special favors and some kind of boost up, as though nature could be reversed. Most likely, this will come from the same "lowest common denominator crowd" that tells us that illegal immigrants should be given the right to vote.

edit: I'm no fan of Eugenics, btw. I simply oppose the forced elevation of those less worthy at the expense of those more worthy. Non-intervention would be best.
 

LakAttack

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
533
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: LakAttack
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Please people don't miss the point of the thread (all joking aside). I was talking in terms of a successful capable human being and you can't for a second pretend that an intelligent medical doctor is no better for the longevity and capability of the human race than a low-iq welfare recipient with no future. That's how I'm determining success. I'm not saying that poor = dumb.

No, but it seems that you are saying poor = worthless to society. You seem to say the same type things in the illegal immigration threads. The flaw in your argument though, is that class and success do not equal "more superiorly evolved." It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. What you deem favorable positions (doctors, lawyers, computer programmers) are finite in number. To think that if all computer programmers died, no one from what you deem an unfavorable position (garbage man, farm hand, janitor) could rise into that position is both egotistical and unAmerican. People aren't poor because they are intellectually inferior. Are some poor people intellectually inferior? You bet. But I've met plenty of people in middle-management white-collar jobs that are as well.
I take it that you believe that the average low-class person is intellectually capable of the same things the average higher-class is? Quite incorrect. And no I never said poor are worthless to society. "It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. " <- wrong. We are products of environment and genetic predispositions. To argue that the latter has no influence on the outcome of a person is flatly wrong. Are you denying any correlations between class and intellience?

Yes, I am denying there are SIGNIFICANT correlations between "class and intellience" (sic ;)).

I think the problem is the word intelligence, though. If you mean education and knowledge, then yes, there are differences between classes. That is not the same as intellectual capability. You admit that we are, at least in part, products of our environment. That makes it extremely difficult to determine intellectual capability for those without access to the same advantages as those in favorable social circumstances. Now, if you want to argue that poor people having too many kids is bad for society as we prefer it, then maybe I see both sides of that coin. But to say that it is somehow interfering with evolution. . . I don't think so.
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Yes, I am denying there are SIGNIFICANT correlations between "class and intellience" (sic ).

I think the problem is the word intelligence, though. If you mean education and knowledge, then yes, there are differences between classes. That is not the same as intellectual capability. You admit that we are, at least in part, products of our environment. That makes it extremely difficult to determine intellectual capability for those without access to the same advantages as those in favorable social circumstances. Now, if you want to argue that poor people having too many kids is bad for society as we prefer it, then maybe I see both sides of that coin. But to say that it is somehow interfering with evolution. . . I don't think so.

I agree. Nonetheless, the trend is interfering with our supposed quest for equal opportunity.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Skoorb. Your correlation between "class" and intelligence/future worth to society is false. I can disprove that by simply pointing to the masses of Asian immigrants that come to the US. They uniformly seem to have higher incomes and better educated and successfull children than even the traditional US "upper classes". Thier being poor or lower class to start out had nothing to do with it.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I think your ideas of forced sterilization may be a little strong though...
Yeah I was just kidding around with that :) I really don't like forced sterilization.

LakAttack It's difficult to impossible to nail down the root causes of intelligence and how they compare to environment. However there is a combining influence of both affecting one's intelligence and as such you can't ignore that a child from two smart parents is more likely to command a greater intelligence than a child from two dumb parents. here is a decent read on it half way down the page.

Now that I think we can conclude that there is more to intelligence than simpyl environment we need a way to determine which people are smarter than others? And I propose that a child born of two neurosurgeons is probably smarter than a child born of two street cleaners. And, although a smart child can grow up to have a low-end job and by society's standards be a "failure", I can think of no child with a low IQ who is going to lead their field in cardiac research.

So, take the two neurosurgeon's kid and give him to some distant family. Now, do the same with the two street cleaner's kid, and it's safe to predict that the neurosurgeon's kid will be more successful later in life (from a career/prestige/health/money point of view, which is really how society deems success). But the problem is that for every neurosurgeon couple they may have only 3 kids, but the street cleaner couple may have 5 or 6!
 

radioouman

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2002
8,632
0
0
Originally posted by: LakAttack
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: LakAttack
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Please people don't miss the point of the thread (all joking aside). I was talking in terms of a successful capable human being and you can't for a second pretend that an intelligent medical doctor is no better for the longevity and capability of the human race than a low-iq welfare recipient with no future. That's how I'm determining success. I'm not saying that poor = dumb.

No, but it seems that you are saying poor = worthless to society. You seem to say the same type things in the illegal immigration threads. The flaw in your argument though, is that class and success do not equal "more superiorly evolved." It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. What you deem favorable positions (doctors, lawyers, computer programmers) are finite in number. To think that if all computer programmers died, no one from what you deem an unfavorable position (garbage man, farm hand, janitor) could rise into that position is both egotistical and unAmerican. People aren't poor because they are intellectually inferior. Are some poor people intellectually inferior? You bet. But I've met plenty of people in middle-management white-collar jobs that are as well.
I take it that you believe that the average low-class person is intellectually capable of the same things the average higher-class is? Quite incorrect. And no I never said poor are worthless to society. "It just means that their social circumstances are more favorable. " <- wrong. We are products of environment and genetic predispositions. To argue that the latter has no influence on the outcome of a person is flatly wrong. Are you denying any correlations between class and intellience?

Yes, I am denying there are SIGNIFICANT correlations between "class and intellience" (sic ;)).

I think the problem is the word intelligence, though. If you mean education and knowledge, then yes, there are differences between classes. That is not the same as intellectual capability. You admit that we are, at least in part, products of our environment. That makes it extremely difficult to determine intellectual capability for those without access to the same advantages as those in favorable social circumstances. Now, if you want to argue that poor people having too many kids is bad for society as we prefer it, then maybe I see both sides of that coin. But to say that it is somehow interfering with evolution. . . I don't think so.

I have to agree with this. The middle class and upper class may be able to provide a better education to their offspring. A lower class family may end up give their offspring a lower quailty education, but that has nothing to do with their intellectual ability. They may very well be able to achieve a PhD, or work on a cutting edge idea that requires a high level of intellectual ability.

What I see is that a child that is raised in a lower class family sets lower standards for himself for life. He may get great grades in school, but if your parents only graduated high school, then that child may think that a two year degree at the community college is really doing well. In an upper class family, the parents may both be college graduates with masters degrees or PhDs and the child will strive to be equal or do better than the parents. (Obviously in both cases the parents encourage the child to do well, and the child doesn't just thrive on their own.)

EDIT: I made the assumption that college = intelligence. It does not. You can obviously be a very smart person without a college education. There are plenty of examples of that. Typically though, if your social group consists of people that are speaking intelligently about things, you'll probably try to gain knowledge to be able to talk with them. The opposite is probably true too.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Skoorb. Your correlation between "class" and intelligence/future worth to society is false. I can disprove that by simply pointing to the masses of Asian immigrants that come to the US. They uniformly seem to have higher incomes and better educated and successfull children than even the traditional US "upper classes". Thier being poor or lower class to start out had nothing to do with it.
I find that argument questionable. If a genius is born in cambodia chances are good they're going to be pretty poor and "low class", but drop them into the US and in a few years they may emerge as a success. Were those asians of lowclass in their own countries before they came over? Are asians just smarter than non-asians? There are too many factors in there.

 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I think your ideas of forced sterilization may be a little strong though...
Yeah I was just kidding around with that :) I really don't like forced sterilization.

LakAttack It's difficult to impossible to nail down the root causes of intelligence and how they compare to environment. However there is a combining influence of both affecting one's intelligence and as such you can't ignore that a child from two smart parents is more likely to command a greater intelligence than a child from two dumb parents. here is a decent read on it half way down the page.

Now that I think we can conclude that there is more to intelligence than simpyl environment we need a way to determine which people are smarter than others? And I propose that a child born of two neurosurgeons is probably smarter than a child born of two street cleaners. And, although a smart child can grow up to have a low-end job and by society's standards be a "failure", I can think of no child with a low IQ who is going to lead their field in cardiac research.

So, take the two neurosurgeon's kid and give him to some distant family. Now, do the same with the two street cleaner's kid, and it's safe to predict that the neurosurgeon's kid will be more successful later in life (from a career/prestige/health/money point of view, which is really how society deems success). But the problem is that for every neurosurgeon couple they may have only 3 kids, but the street cleaner couple may have 5 or 6!

Then how do you explain masses of Indians whose parents are in low subsistance occupations such as street cleaners or shop keepers, taxi drivers, that become Doctors?

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I have to agree with this. The middle class and upper class may be able to provide a better education to their offspring. A lower class family may end up give their offspring a lower quailty education, but that has nothing to do with their intellectual ability. They may very well be able to achieve a PhD, or work on a cutting edge idea that requires a high level of intellectual ability.

What I see is that a child that is raised in a lower class family sets lower standards for himself for life. He may get great grades in school, but if your parents only graduated high school, then that child may think that a two year degree at the community college is really doing well. In an upper class family, the parents may both be college graduates with masters degrees or PhDs and the child will strive to be equal or do better than the parents. (Obviously in both cases the parents encourage the child to do well, and the child doesn't just thrive on their own.)
I don't deny that people can change their place in society, but follow this logic:

1) There is a link between genetics and intelligence (no, I didn't say that genetics is the only determinant of intelligence, but merely there is a link - something the majority of researchers in the field are going to agree on, regardless of what the percentage is).
2) Intelligence relative to your peers is likely to raise your place in society relative to your peers (brainiacs don't clean toilets, and unintelligent people don't cure cancer)
3) We've just established a link between one's intelligence and their class.

Frankly I'm surprised that so many people think that genetics plays no role in intelligence and, further, that one's intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with their lot in life, but rather it's all how they apply themselves and the environment they are brought up in This throws nature right out the window and puts nurture as the only determinant of one's place in society.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Let's assume that you believe in evolution for the duration of this thread.

I'm sure you've noticed that a middle class family may average 2-3 kids, and yet often lower-class poor families have way more. It's really a shame it's not the other way around because those who are poorest, and least able to cope with life (please don't get philisophical arguing that you don't need money for happiness, etc.), crank out the most kids, so they are continually flooding the population with dummy-kids, whereas from a superior human-race perspective it would be best if the more successful in society were having kids!

I propose that anybody under the poverty line is given forced sterilization. If you are above 18 and below poverty line you have 1 year to get above it and then you're sterilized.

You can ignore my third paragraph freely as I don't really mean it at all (this isn't china afterall ;)), but I do think that evolution's ability to enhance our species is being deteriorated (at least from optimal evolutionary speed), by this phenomenon. Thousands of years ago when being poor meant your kids were very likely to die (or similarly in very poor countries) this would not have been an issue, but in ours now even the poorest can generally feed their kids.

If we weren't in a free society, I would actually agree with this. But your example does reflect why the democrats seem to have kept as much power as they could until now. They shot themselves in the foot when they advocated pro-choice, abortion clinics, safe sex before marriage, etc. Now their only shot is to get elderly votes by promoting as much free drugs and healthcare as possible. But the flaw in their thinking is that the eldery are the wealthiest of the country and most of them don't need free handouts - plus their voter base will die out shortly.
 

xospec1alk

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
4,329
0
0
i thought the idea behind having a whole bunch of kids is you have more of a chance that one will go on and succeed hehe

i mean if you have 10 kids, im sure one of em will make it big :)
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Then how do you explain masses of Indians whose parents are in low subsistance occupations such as street cleaners or shop keepers, taxi drivers, that become Doctors?

there are ways to argue with the assumption that poverty -> children -> poor education -> poverty, but immigration is not one. For one thing, you're dealing with a group of people that actively came here, which immediately removes the people who didn't have the resources and motivation to come over. Secondly, as some one else pointed out, the third world is predominately poorer than the first, so transplanting objectivly poor people doesn't properlly correlate to the relativism of this argument.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Then how do you explain masses of Indians whose parents are in low subsistance occupations such as street cleaners or shop keepers, taxi drivers, that become Doctors?
I think that immigration issues are greatly clouding any ability to input an immigrant into the discussion. Intelligence is not going to lead to an immediate rise in class just because you're smart and moved to the US.