# selective human breeding for looks and brains? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 10, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-human-breeding-for-looks-and-brains/599215 "2011-10-10T20:01:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-human-breeding-for-looks-and-brains/599215/41 "2011-10-12T15:06:34Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Yeah, and Rumer Willis is proof that the selective breeding doesn’t quite work like you’d expect. Yeah…she looks like a Moonlighting-era Bruce Willis in drag. Not that she’s literally hideous, but what looks good on Bruce Willis doesn’t look so good on a woman. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-human-breeding-for-looks-and-brains/599215/42 "2011-10-12T15:28:49Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think my example of Rumer Willis is a better one; she looks freaky and I wouldn’t screw her with a rented dick. Both of her parents are widely considered attractive though. > > Jamie Lee Curtis is attractive, and was more so when younger; she may not be the sum of the attractiveness of Janet Leigh and Tony Curtis, but she’s not materially uglier than they were either. The trouble is, considering what you see pushing baby strollers around, either your standards are well above average or your beer consumption is well below average. Another problem is selective breeding for one trait (looks, football/basketball physique, brains) usually means you encourage that trait at the expense of other undesirable traits. Purebred dogs, for example, are notorious for medical problems like bad hips, and nervousness. Thoroughbred horses are famously high strung and prone to broken bones. The biggest problem would be keeping such a project on track for the necessary generations. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-human-breeding-for-looks-and-brains/599215/43 "2011-10-12T17:21:12Z")
I’ve never seen any good evidence that intelligence - however you want to define it - _is_ heritable. I used to work with children, and I’ve seen plenty of smart children with dumb parents, and dumb children with smart parents. I’ve also seen plenty of families where siblings - same parents, same environment - have markedly different levels of intelligence. If there _is_ a real genetic component to intelligence, it’ll be very complex and spread over a _lot_ of genes, and there won’t be any way to breed for it with our current level of knowledge and ability. It’d require the exact knowledge of which genes to “activate” and which to suppress, _and_ the ability to do so. We’re a _long_ way from being able to do that in humans. A _very_ long way. Simply trying to breed smart people to produce smarter people would be a complete waste of time. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that anyone who believed it _was_ that simple would be automatically disqualified from the program. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-human-breeding-for-looks-and-brains/599215/44 "2011-10-12T17:46:22Z")
The most rational discussions of the subject of intelligence and heredity that I have seen come to the conclusion it’s about half inherited and half environment. An example of selective breeding for intelligence may be the Jewish comunities of europe. Book learning was prized, and the smartest tended to become scholars and rabbis. In times of famine in a religious community, rabbis probably were less likely to starve, thus providing the selection. OTOH, an accountant friend of mine said what Isaac Asimov also remarked, “there are a lot of really stupid Jews too.” China would be similar - 2,000 years of providing secure paid employment (in a land prone to famine) for those who passed civil service exams. Oddly both communities have a reputation for smarts; but that could also be the environment, since both communities also have a reputation for respect of learning and encouraging educational potential. OTOH, the western Christian tradition was to take the best and brightest among the peasantry, give them an education in the clergy, and forbid them from breeding. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-human-breeding-for-looks-and-brains/599215.md?page=2)