How would that affect differential reproductive success?
Then it’s not a Federal program any more, is it?
Basically, the article discusses strong evidence of a genetic pre-disposition to asocial / antisocial behavior. However, the genetic predisposition was found in and by the professor from UC-Irvine. Although he has this genetic “weakness”, which we would probably select against if we could and we would, he is making significant contributions to his society. He attributes this to his fortunate upbringing.
SIDETRACK:
You should listen to the interview; it’s interesting. To summarize (very roughly):
He was studying PET scans of the brains of serial killers and similarly unpleasant people, noticed a pattern, and then found the same pattern in his own brain.
He then found in genetic studies he had traits associated with high aggression / low empathy, etc. I seem to remember from an earlier interview that several generations of his family included murderers.
His mother, reportedly, noticed some disturbing behavior when he was growing up, and made a point of providing him with a loving and supportive home-life. (I know, unlike roughly 99% of mothers …)
END
I don’t agree it is the most important, but it certainly should be considered. (I am not challenging it in this case.)
Even if we assumed that IQ could be inheritable, we still have lots of innovative thinkers popping up at random. If it was possible to identify early on someone exceptional from what I gather you think would be an IQ-poor genetic environment and give them a top-notch education to maximize their potential, wouldn’t that be better than hoping a eugenic program might yield a slight improvement twenty years from now? You’ve got people going to waste right now because they happen to have been born to parents who can’t afford a top notch education for their children.
Besides, why does it have to be “federal”? Let the individual states pursue this if they want and you can contrast their efforts against the “control group” of states who choose no such pursuit.
I expect it would not, and who cares? The random mixing of genetics, epigenetics and formative experiences in a country the size of the U.S. pretty much guarantees that talented and potentially talented people will pop up just about anywhere. Improve educational methods to identify such persons and challenge/nurture their talents and I expect it’ll help more than some fuzzy notion of trying to encourage the “right” people to breed (and the “wrong” people not to) for a possible result decades from now.
Don’t be silly. That would be subsidizing the poor and middle class, which is communism and fascism rolled into a big ball of socialism. You’re only allowed to subsidize rich people, because giving handouts to rich people is capitalism.
Also, when the government slightly modifies a regulation that affects rich people, the whole economy goes haywire. But when poor people are poor, that has nothing to do with government policy, ever at all. Poor people are only poor because they have genetically inherited bad IQs. But then, it’s okay to use government money to subsidize poor people sterilizing themselves (as long as you don’t give them health insurance), because those government subsidies are capitalism.
I don’t know that most here oppose the theory of improving the gene pool, but I strongly suspect most here believe it would not be done. A consensus could never reached on which traits to select and deselect for, or, if it were, the law of unintended consequences would prove it a mistake.
Actually, many of the people here don’t think IQ is real.
Me? I think intelligence is real, it is heritable, and it is very nice to have. But I don’t believe it the only desirable heritable characteristic, not at all.
And I would appreciate it if you would post links to those studies.
Which you have not provided.
Why need they be anonymous ? This is the kind of thing the Bill Gate’s and Koch Bros’ foundations will be proud to sponsor in a couple of years.
And really if that’s the goal, it makes far more sense to push for more research into genetic engineering. Even ignoring the moral issues, selective breeding of humans is largely impractical and would as has already been pointed out have the same undesired side effects as breeding animals does. With a sufficiently advanced genetic engineering technology we could just remove undesired genes and add desired ones, instead of having to treat a person’s genome as a whole like selective breeding does.
And given how long selective breeding would take to have an effect on humans given our long generations, even if eugenics was practical, moral and effective genetic engineering should advance to the point where it can do a far better job long before selective breeding did anything useful, anyway.
Thank you. You put a lot more effort into that that I did.
I don’t think genetic engineering would be as effective as selective breeding, because your parents’ contribution isn’t just their genetics. For an extreme example, some criminals will teach their children to help them commit crimes. Even if there is such a thing as genetic predisposition to greatness and you give them such a child using genetic engineering and IVF, they’ll still undermine that predisposition by raising the child to help them commit crimes.
It does all come down to the data. And all the real data says the genetic influence on social traits is minor. There are numerous government programs that would spend less money then what you’re proposing and have evidence that they would produce better results towards the goals you say you’re pushing for.
That argument doesn’t hold together. Parenting is a separate issue from whether or not the child is genetically engineered, selectively bred or totally unplanned. Not genetically engineering children won’t prevent them from being raised badly, either. And that argument also ignores the fact that selective breeding always introduces unwanted traits along with the desired ones.
Ah, but a lot of migrant field-workers aren’t citizens, thus making them uneligible along with a large swath of the poorest people in the US.
Sure would be nice to see some of that there reputable data…
johngalt2014 writes:
> What I really was hoping to hear is the sentiments of the staunch pro-lifers – I
> wondered if they would take objection this. Hopefully one of them will reply at
> some point.
Then you should have posted to some other board, since you’re not going to find a lot of them on the SDMB.
I read this out loud and every dog in a 2-mile radius started howling. Also, even assuming that there is some hereditary factor to IQ, time and time again it has been shown that social factors are far more meaningful. You could have the greatest genes on the planet; if you are a woman and born in Saudi Arabia, it will never matter. You see where I’m going with this? Oh, and pro tip: I liked Idiocracy too, but it’s not a documentary. Every premise they present is just completely wrong when you examine the science.
Speaking of “every premise they present is just completely wrong”… A few things worth noting.
- Birth/Death is barely stable in he USA; almost all growth in population comes from immigration.
- This concept of the “welfare queen” was a dated and offensive stereotype with no grounding in reality in the 80s; it has not aged well.
- Having more children while barely scraping by on welfare is, contrary to popular belief among the right wing (and sociopaths), not a financially smart move. Children are expensive. It’s just that people are going to fuck (especially when the list of alternative entertainment options are meh at best), contraceptives are pricy (thanks, right wing, for making that situation even worse), and poor people are often that way because they are not well-educated. See where this is going?
Free sterilization would help. But you’re proposing something slightly different.
>PETA
>protecting animals
You have a lot to learn.
Got any projections on when that’s going to happen?
And believe me, we don’t miss 'em.
My guess is that some of the women who will have themselves sterilized for cash are the ones a eugenics program wouldn’t want to lose from the gene pool. Young women prioritizing a career (who otherwise might have children in middle age, but early on don’t believe they will). Beautiful women who value their bodies and don’t want stretch marks or the messiness of pregnancy.
Likewise, I’d expect young men in similar situations to take advantage of it - you are young single, and make a lot of money. You like to get laid and find that the BMW and “when I went to law school” are successful methods for doing so. You don’t want to get slapped with a paternity suit. You are a young athlete with a pro career, you also get laid a lot and don’t want to get slapped with a paternity suit.
As a eugenics idea - voluntary is lousy - its like needing to reduce your staff so taking volunteers to get laid off - you don’t lose the people who are afraid, you loose the people who know they’ll get a job or who are close to retirement anyway. Here, you are going to gain the people who value money over children - my guess is that will correlate just as well to the young and well off as to the young and poor.
Quite a bit. More than I can bother cramming into one post, in fact, so I’ll start by noting that this is a partial list.
From the second paper: “Scientists have found that identical twins separated at birth and raised apart are almost identical in IQ, despite the fact that they had totally different environments. Remarkably, twins reared apart are as similar as identical twins reared together by the time they’re adults. They also resemble one another strikingly in their mannerisms, the way they laugh, their likes and dislikes, phobias, temperament, sexual preference, educational achievement, income, conscientiousness, musical ability, sense of humor, whether they’re criminals or law-abiding, and pretty much everything else that’s ever been tested”
This is an urban legend. There has never been a scientific study of twins separated at birth and raised apart.
From the first paper: “Our genetic potential for intelligence has been declining in Europe and North America since the mid- 1800s, with a total loss of about 5-8 IQ points. Currently, we are losing almost one IQ point each generation.”
Completely wrong, and the author contradicts this claim when he later mentions The Flynn Effect. Like most people, I don’t believe that IQ is a measure of intelligence, but as a basic fact, average IQ scores have gone up worldwide for generations, not down.
From the first paper: Throughout our evolution, the weak and diseased died young and didn’t pass on their genes. Now, because of modern medicine, people with numerous genetic diseases live long enough to reproduce and transmit defective genes to their children. (Examples: cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, diabetes, pyloric stenosis, various heart defects, thalassemia, phenylketonuria, and sickle cell anemia.) The incidence of many of these disorders is doubling or tripling each generation.
I’d have to see a reliable source for this claim before I believed it. I know that incidence of Diabetes has increased quite a bit in the USA, but that’s obviously a consequence of unhealthy diet, not genetics.
Regarding the issue of race, I note that the biggest quote in the first paper comes from Francis Galton, who advocated the extermination of blacks and other races that he regarded as genetically inferior. If you don’t want to be regarded as a racist yourself, you might want to avoid associating with stuff like that.
Pre-natal / early childhood nutrition comes immediately to mind. If only there were a mechanism for ensuring pregnant women and infants had access to healthy food …
But eugenics is. Unless you are arguing that discouraging / preventing procreation on social criteria is a good idea.