Our society is sabotaging evolution!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
I don't know Skoorb, I think you're actively mixing and matching the definition of intelligence. Can you give us your working definition? When I use intelligence I mean cognitive ability.
 

Thraxen

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
4,683
1
81
Professional atheletes are very wealthy. Same goes for Hollywood. So I guess they should all be allowed to have kids because we all know how smart many of them are... How about all those rich men who marry dumb-as-a-rock trophy wives? Just because you have one smart bread winner in the family doesn't mean the spouse is also intelligent.

But as other people have pointed out, your logic is seriously compromised because education is likely a much bigger factor than actual intellectual capability (i.e. rich families can afford better education for their kids no matter how smart they are).
 

Kyteland

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2002
5,747
1
81
Actually there is no proof that intelligence is a survival trait.

I just finished reading A World Out of Time by Larry Niven and he proposed an iteresting idea. For a few generations anyone with a major genetic defect would be sterilized along with all of their children. The end result would be that not only would the gene pool be cleaned up quite a bit, but the world population would decrease significantly as well.

I must say I like this system better than sterilizing the poor, because I know some rich people with pretty poor genetics.
 

LakAttack

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
533
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
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.

Again, I'm not arguing that genetics plays no role in 'intelligence.' (I still object to this word, but I will assume you mean intellectual capability and not knowedge/education). It plays an important role. I disagree with your #2 point. While I agree that 'unintelligent people don't cure cancer,' I don't agree that 'brainiacs don't clean toilets'. Neurosurgeon = proven intellectual capability. Toilet Cleaner = unproven intellectual capability. That is where environment comes in to play. The toilet cleaner has no access gain the knowledge necessary to prove his/her intellectual capability. So I think the "link" established in point #3 is invalid.
 

radioouman

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2002
8,632
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
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.


I agree with your logic, but peers are not equal to society. I grew up in a suburb of a city that had 7 different elementary schools. Some of them were in upper class areas, and some of them were literally in the slums. We were all brought together in high school, not knowing the differences of where each other came from. A large percentage of the top of the class took the AP (advanced placement) courses, and there were at least as many people from lower income families in that class as from upper.

I haven't stay in touch with all of those people, but I can tell you that the ones that I have stayed in touch with are doing some impressive things. Engineers, doctors, architects, as well as PhDs have come from the people in the AP classes. Lower class, middle class, and upper class families produced all of these intellectual people.

Now, I did say that this was a suburb, and no matter what I call the slums in the suburb, they didn't compare to the slums in the city itself. I know that the city's school district was much larger than the suburb's, so that would probably change this ratio a bit.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: Mookow
I've thought of this before. It sucks, but realistically, I dont think there is much you can do.

You could tax the hell out of people that just wont follow Chris Rock's advice and "Put the DICK DOWN!", but I dont think that's a great idea, and sterilization wouldnt work, either, since pretty much every college student (who do better than people with just a HS diploma) would get the chop.

I heard a talk show host talk about mandatory sterilization just a few weeks ago, and for the first time I actually heard another person talk about the subject, which I agree with.

This is how it works:

If you are SO poor that you absolutely need social handouts - food, money, housing, etc. that is paid for by tax paper, then by accepting it you are owned by the State. Therefore, the State can legally have you sterilized. So, the trick is if someone wants to sign up for welfare and they are still in their fertile years, then they must be tied or snipped. This prevents any more kids from happening.

Don't you think that is a great idea? :)
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
I don't know Skoorb, I think you're actively mixing and matching the definition of intelligence. Can you give us your working definition? When I use intelligence I mean cognitive ability.
Me too. But I'm defining success as any number of factors that people generally possess when others call them successful.

 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
I don't know Skoorb, I think you're actively mixing and matching the definition of intelligence. Can you give us your working definition? When I use intelligence I mean cognitive ability.
Me too. But I'm defining success as any number of factors that people generally possess when others call them successful.

In which case, I'm a bit skeptical about enviornment having a signfigant impact on "intelligence" as you and I define it.

Good point above about proven and unproven ability. (surgeon and toilet cleaner).

This is probably one of the major concepts that drives the idealistic quest for equal opportunity (that is, to prove your actual abilities). As I pointed out earlier, in this particular model (capitalism) success is far from being an efficient and accurate way to dileneate natural ability.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
The minute group of professional athletes is not really worthy of consideration compared to a country of 300 million people :)

I agree with the statement that intelligence is not linked to survival in OUR society. Clearly even stupid people can get all the food they want, although if things were more sparse those with more cunning and brains would be the first ones to get the food.

As far as optimal evolution is concerned it's clear that people are becoming smaller in stature and physically weaker, as our brains increase in abilities. So, given a link between genes and intelligence it's against the ideal evolutionary goal for stupid people to have more kids than smart people, because they are dumbing down the progress. And, since I still maintain that the average raw intelligence of upper class people is greater than the average raw intelligence of lower class people, and yet lower class people have a disproportionate amount of offspring, I am concluding that evolution's ideal progress has been slowed.

Something more tangible than this argument is an even more politically incorrect stance that, due to medical breakthroughs, people who would otherwise have died before becoming of child bearing age are now able to reproduce, thus passing genetic weaknesses down to offspring instead of dying.

Just reminding everyone that I never said we should sterilize them (except in jest).
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: Kyteland
Actually there is no proof that intelligence is a survival trait.

I just finished reading A World Out of Time by Larry Niven and he proposed an iteresting idea. For a few generations anyone with a major genetic defect would be sterilized along with all of their children. The end result would be that not only would the gene pool be cleaned up quite a bit, but the world population would decrease significantly as well.

I must say I like this system better than sterilizing the poor, because I know some rich people with pretty poor genetics.

Yes but what would you consider a genetic defect? Crooked nose? Balding? Poor eye sight?

Instead, we could just use genetic profiling. Map out the dna, see what defects exist, and prevent those defects from passing on to the offspring by manually selecting sperm for procreation. Granted you won't catch it right away for most of the population but after several generations you should be able to weed it out.

I remember seeing this scifi tv movie where people were implanted with this visible gem thing, which determined what their comptability color was. So by law you could only procreate with someone of your genetic color or under. It was tiered in a way, so green colors could go with green, blue, red, purple - blue could go with blue, red, purple - red just red and purple, etc. something like that. But if you were unlucky your gem would be black and you weren't allowed to procreate - which meant your genetics were majorly messed up... And then they also had a law where you had to register to have children and could only have up to 3 or something like that.

I don't remember what that movie was called... I didn't get to see the beginning...
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
The minute group of professional athletes is not really worthy of consideration compared to a country of 300 million people :)

I agree with the statement that intelligence is not linked to survival in OUR society. Clearly even stupid people can get all the food they want, although if things were more sparse those with more cunning and brains would be the first ones to get the food.

As far as optimal evolution is concerned it's clear that people are becoming smaller in stature and physically weaker, as our brains increase in abilities. So, given a link between genes and intelligence it's against the ideal evolutionary goal for stupid people to have more kids than smart people, because they are dumbing down the progress. And, since I still maintain that the average raw intelligence of upper class people is greater than the average raw intelligence of lower class people, and yet lower class people have a disproportionate amount of offspring, I am concluding that evolution's ideal progress has been slowed.

Something more tangible than this argument is an even more politically incorrect stance that, due to medical breakthroughs, people who would otherwise have died before becoming of child bearing age are now able to reproduce, thus passing genetic weaknesses down to offspring instead of dying.

Just reminding everyone that I never said we should sterilize them (except in jest).

Don't worry Scoorb, mother nature is fighting back with a vengeance. Our society is increasing it's homosexual population, which can't procreate.

Wow, this thread is reaching an all time high controversy. :D
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Skoorb, I got bored reading this thread about 3/4th the way down the first page so heres my comment anyways:

You have a lot of stupid people. But you also have a lot of stupid jobs. You can't have 1000000000000s of doctors. Likewise, no one with a phd in heart surgery is going to want to sweep the high school gymnasium.

Although, if your plan includes replacing stupid jobs with robots. THEN WE ARE GOING PLACES. add me to your newsletter.
 

Kyteland

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2002
5,747
1
81
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Don't worry Scoorb, mother nature is fighting back with a vengeance. Our society is increasing it's homosexual population, which can't procreate.

Wow, this thread is reaching an all time high controversy. :D

Not true. Do you honestly think that homosexuals are unable to have children? They may not enjoy the act but they can certainlt do it.

Hell, I don't like paying taxes but I still manage to do it every year. :D
 

Kyteland

Diamond Member
Dec 30, 2002
5,747
1
81
Originally posted by: yayo
blast you!

Evolution doesn't exists, god does silly!

LOL. Too many people in this thread trying to start flame wars, not enough participating in them.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: skace

Although, if your plan includes replacing stupid jobs with robots. THEN WE ARE GOING PLACES. add me to your newsletter.

:D

Isn't that how the Matrix got started? :Q
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: Kyteland
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Don't worry Scoorb, mother nature is fighting back with a vengeance. Our society is increasing it's homosexual population, which can't procreate.

Wow, this thread is reaching an all time high controversy. :D

Not true. Do you honestly think that homosexuals are unable to have children? They may not enjoy the act but they can certainlt do it.

Hell, I don't like paying taxes but I still manage to do it every year. :D

Okay let me be more specific, homosexuals cannot procreate homosexually :)
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: Kyteland
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Don't worry Scoorb, mother nature is fighting back with a vengeance. Our society is increasing it's homosexual population, which can't procreate.

Wow, this thread is reaching an all time high controversy. :D

Not true. Do you honestly think that homosexuals are unable to have children? They may not enjoy the act but they can certainlt do it.

Hell, I don't like paying taxes but I still manage to do it every year. :D

Okay let me be more specific, homosexuals cannot procreate homosexually :)
What if you're a lesbian trapped in a guy's body?!
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
They are now able to make a sperm into an egg and vice versa. Homosexually could within the forseeable future procreate homosexually.
 

Rilescat

Senior member
Jan 11, 2002
815
0
0
Originally posted by: dman
Those under the poverty line should be sold into slavery. It's only the fair thing to do.






/Just adding controversy into this thread, completely in jest. See you in hell Skoorb.

I prefer they be DONATED into slavery. Why should I have to spend my upperclass money purchasing the ingrates if I have to feed them afterwards anyway?