If a cohort of smart and good looking people only bred with others of the same ilk then would there be even smarter and even better looking descendents (i.e., a qualitative vs a quantitave result) after several generatons? What about a quantitave increase, i.e., MORE smart and good looking descendents?
Eugenics likely encompasses what you’re asking about. You might want to start by reading the Wikipedia article on it:
Lots of ethical questions, not to mention raising the Nazi / Aryan bogeyman.
Not necessarily, unless someone was also killing or sterilizing all the offspring who didn’t meet the established criteria. Oh, and then there’s the inbreeding, because you can’t just have the kids breeding with whoever they think is smart and beautiful.
Of course they also may end up with all kinds of medical conditions that might happen to be in the original gene pool too. Schizophrenia, hemophilia, who know?
If it makes you feel better, there is such a program going on in Hollywood, for beauty if not for brains.
Using “natural selection” in these cases IMHO this is certainly happening. I have read that the rise in aspergers suggest that highly educated / intelligent parents are pairing off and producing more aspergers children.
And I have always held that you can observe this in places like Los Angeles where the extremely good looking migrate from all over the country, meet up, and have even better looking children. Those children meet each other and have even better looking children!
Whereas the converse, again IMHO, occurs in smaller rural towns. The smart and good looking who are born there find a way to leave. While the remaining folks mate with each other producing more average offspring.
Nonsense. Selection generally has to be maintained rigorously for many generations in order to have a discernible effect, at least in the case of traits that depend on multiple genes, as appearance and intelligence certainly do. Assortative mating between humans has not been carried out nearly long enough, nor with rigorous enough selection, to have any real effect.
There are a couple of big problems with this. Just a few examples:
-
Humans take a long time to grow to breeding age. It’s going to take many generations to see the effects of your breeding program. It’s not a coincidence that domestic animals tend to be ones that take less time to mature to breeding age.
-
How, exactly, are we measuring beauty and intelligence for the purposes of this project? Most measures we have of such things are highly culture-dependent, and aren’t always stable over time. Both big and small breasts were fashionable at different times in the twentieth century, which is only 3-4 human generations. Who’s setting the breed standard here, and how do we keep it from changing?
-
What are we going to do with the offspring who aren’t up to snuff? The laws and public opinion in most countries with decent infrastructure take a dim view of killing them, abandoning them, sterilizing them, or throwing them out of the community. A lot of people would have problems with doing this kind of thing to their own kids for the good of the community. What do we do when we have a child that clearly doesn’t meet our standards, but its parents want to keep it and help it find a mate?
-
Beauty and intelligence are probably not solely genetic. There are probably also environmental factors that go into them.
-
People are interested in having sex with others who are neither smart nor beautiful. Married people who have affairs don’t always choose lovers who are smarter and more physically attractive than their spouses. Prince Charles’ affair with Camilla Parker Bowles is a famous example of this.
I’m not sure that good looks is something that is terribly heritable. What makes a man good looking – square jaw, solid skeletal structure, etc. – makes a woman look not-so-good. If you’re a girl and you take after your dad, that he’s good looking doesn’t translate to you.
Also, most of what makes one good looking is how symmetrical your facial features are. That probably has more to do with whether anything ever squeezed down on your skull while you were in uteris and shortly after birth, than anything else. For the first several months of our existence, our structure is somewhat fluid, and that’s true regardless of who your parents are, and hence just as probable to get smudged no matter what your parents look like.
The only thing that might make a difference is your parents and your community’s focus on looks. If you live in Beverly Hills, your parents are more likely to fund plastic surgery, teeth whitening, etc. You’re more likely to keep yourself properly groomed, slim, and wearing well-fitted clothes.
I can’t tell the difference between the 2 questions you are asking.
Can you link to a cite for this? And hopefully something more rigorous than People magazine. 
This is more likely to be either a) confirmation bias or b) more related to external factors like exercise, grooming habits and clothing.
And your People magazine comment was frankly patronizing to the extreme and wholly unnecessary.
From your cite:
Nothing in the article you cite indicates any genetic connection between the educational level of the parents and autism; that was a connection you made.
You might have had more credibility if the rest of your post hadn’t been so silly.
Is this why I’ve never seen an attractive person in Wyoming?
Yeah, and Rumer Willis is proof that the selective breeding doesn’t quite work like you’d expect.
If you haven’t seen an attractive person in Wyoming you haven’t been to Jackson or the mountains ever. Mrsin and I both noted way back in the 70’s how attractive both sexes were at the mountain. Healthy people are attractive.
If you’re talking Rock Springs I agree.
Two things:
- Why would you want smarter people to be bred? If you did that, then why not smarter people again to be bred? It would get to a stage where your own kind have been killed off, and what’s left are these people with gigantic brains.
Furthermore I believe that large sized brains are what is ruining and destroying humans and all life on planet earth. People have brains that are too big to begin with.
- “beauty” is something that comes from signals one human gets from anothers image. Beauty effectively stems from health, fitness, willing to be cooperative with others. That is what beauty comes from.
If you purposely go out of your way to select for beauty, then you are purposely creating false signals and false cues for others. Why would you want to do that?
Please don’t argue with me on any of this, because I spend half my life thinking about this sort of thing, have really strong views and I can get pissy if people say I’m wrong. What you are effectively describing is eugenics which people need to know are wrong and disgusting.
There is no legitimate reason to want extra brains or extra “beauty” or anything like that. Nature is is a finely balanced system, and when humans artificially try to interfere it destroys and ruins everything.
Unless you toss offspring who don’t meet your standard off the island, in general the same genetic mix will be found in the descendents as was found in the ancestors, and any changes in that mixture would be randomly selected and probably average out with no change to your standard of intelligence and looks.
You are forgetting perky breasts.
Apparently, the beautiful people are in Charleston and the ugly people are British. (Super not scientific results there.)
I’m happy to report that I live in the number four spot - Denver. 
It often seems that “looks and brains” are not compatible with each other.
Example: Paris Hilton.
Example: Jessica Simpson.
Example: Britney Spears.
Example: Charlie Sheen.
Example: Ivana Trump.
Example: any number of well-known, good-looking celebrities.