Are people ethically obligated to cheat?

[l33telboi]

Is it even possible to improve the intelligence of a species through selective breeding? When it comes to physical things it's possible, this much has been tested and seen to actually be so. But does the brain work in the same way when it comes to selective breeding. Will the genetics of smart parents increase the possibility of the children also beeing smart?

A side note worthy of consideration, how can you actually test weather it's the actual biology that makes someone smart and not the education, parenting or envoirment that does it?

[l33telboi]

Ghetto Edit:

Count Dooku already touched on the subject, but just to be clear, if anybody has a link too a study or something that has dealt with this i would greatly apprechiate it.

[Mr. T]

There's the problem of actually proving the assertion that a populace with greater intelligence will actually be good for any given society for your ethical claim to work out. It's quite obvious that society needs the less intelligent people to run less intelligent jobs. If everyone's out being an engineer and designing bridges, there's not going to be any dumber people to actually work construction and build them. If everyone's at the office designing useful new software to make many operations run by computers go more smoothly, who's going to be taking out the garbage, cleaning out the bathrooms, all that extra shit? Who'll cook and serve food? I mean, there's a lot of jobs that people simply wouldn't be happy doing, and a smarter general populace would mean more people who were qualified for smarter jobs would slip through the cracks.

It's not as if this would instantly turn us instantly in to Einstein's overnight. It may take generations before a significant general increase in intelligence is registered among the general population. Besides, even if we accept your premise that very smart people are only willing to do intellectually rigorous work (which isn't necessarily true, just because they can do intellectually rigorous work it doesn't mean that every smart person necessarily wants to do it), labour shortages in less skilled industries would just be corrected by economic factors such as increases in wage. No smart person wants to be a janitor ? Well market forces will force the janitors wages up enough until a sufficient number of these super-intelligent people want to be janitors. I sure wouldn't mind being a janitor if the salary was on par with a high priced corporate lawyer (extreme example but you get the point).

[Zero]

*snip*

You're right. I was making several assumptions that aren't necessarily justified when I claimed that smarter people will necessarily want smarter jobs.

Is it even possible to improve the intelligence of a species through selective breeding? When it comes to physical things it's possible, this much has been tested and seen to actually be so. But does the brain work in the same way when it comes to selective breeding. Will the genetics of smart parents increase the possibility of the children also beeing smart?

Actually, I had forgotten about this, but there was an article posted here at SDN that showed that the children of scientists might actually be more likely to be autistic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... xhome.html

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I don't see it as a moral imperative that all intellegent men and women should follow, and certainly not at the cost of an otherwise potentially stable family (after all, even genetically intellegent children might be irrevocably messed up by a household shattered by a botched operation of this sort).

Other then your one objection, you've not stated why. Additionally, your one objection is flawed in that intelligent (or even average) "messed up" (which is a nebulous term that you've left completely undefined- hence it is meaningless), children, regardless of their orgin, are, and will be, a much bigger benefit to soceity then the stupid children.

There's the problem of actually proving the assertion that a populace with greater intelligence will actually be good for any given society for your ethical claim to work out. It's quite obvious that society needs the less intelligent people to run less intelligent jobs. If everyone's out being an engineer and designing bridges, there's not going to be any dumber people to actually work construction and build them. If everyone's at the office designing useful new software to make many operations run by computers go more smoothly, who's going to be taking out the garbage, cleaning out the bathrooms, all that extra shit? Who'll cook and serve food? I mean, there's a lot of jobs that people simply wouldn't be happy doing, and a smarter general populace would mean more people who were qualified for smarter jobs would slip through the cracks.

Real life is not "Brave New World"- despite the claims of the book you don't "need" unintelligent people to fulfill certain roles in soceity- they end up in those roles because that is all that those individuals are capable of.


More intelligent people would mean that the standards of "competance" would rise in the more academically challenging fields- meaning that the jobs would go to the more qualified individuals. Additionally, you're assuming a static demand for unskilled labor- this is not the case. The demand for unskilled labor has been steadily declining due to the invention of more and more labor saving devices. This trend is going to continue- not reverse; meaning that people will increasingly be needed for their intellect- not for their bodily labor.

Smarter people are also less likely to accept things that have long been held as true simply because they've worked in the past. Trying out new ideas can be good, but if everyone's doing it, then whatever society you have won't be very stable.

What an idiotic statement. Stupid people are more likely to accept ideas simply because they've worked in the past- these type of people are called traditionalists. Smart people are more likely to accept a given idea based on its merits- because they're capable of understanding and debating the merits of different positions/ideas.

Besides all of this, cheating simply isn't the most effect means of propogating smart genes.

Actually, outside of marrying intellegence (which is not an option for many people), or remaining single and finding a source of "smart genes", its the ONLY way of propogating smart genes.

Jealous, stupid, and angry husbands are more likely to resort of physical violence of some sort, so many prospective gene propogating smart people might end up getting fucked up, or possibly killed.

So... stupid people might do stupid things. When has that ever been a good reason not to do something that would better soceity?

There's also the fact that many fathers would abandon their wives and children if they found out that the children weren't actually theirs, and with the genetic tests available today, this isn't entirely impossible.

Of course there is that risk- and it will undoubtedly happen. However, I haven't seen any evidence that a child being raised by a single parent is, in and of itself, a major problem for soceity- nor have I seen any evidence that indicates that a child raised that way is a major problem for soceity- and if there is evidence of such, I would be shocked to see that these problems are anywhere near the magnitude of problems, in our soceity, caused by sheer stupidity.

The potential negative effects of breaking up an entire family over an affair and leaving a child with no acting father outweight whatever possible positive effects of cheating could bring about. Even if a kid is smart, if he's coming from a broken home, he's much less likely to be successful or well-ballanced.

So you keep repeating- where is your proof? Where is your evidence that these less successful or "well-balanced" (another undefined- and hence meaningless term) people are anywhere near as much of a problem as the problems caused by outright stupidity?

So to answer your questions: sure, but good luck finding anyone willing to do it.

Shouldn't be too hard- estimates run that the percentage of children not fathered by their "father" (ie- the man that the woman is married to)
is between 10-20%.

Is it even possible to improve the intelligence of a species through selective breeding? When it comes to physical things it's possible, this much has been tested and seen to actually be so. But does the brain work in the same way when it comes to selective breeding. Will the genetics of smart parents increase the possibility of the children also beeing smart?

What do you think controls intelligence- the price of tea in China? Sigh....
Of course intelligence can be improved through selective breeding- intellegence is controlled by genetic material.

[wolveraptor]

Because the benefits of such individual actions would be small and incremental, the immediate familial crisis it would create would outweigh the long-term benefit. Children of average intelligence in a household where spouses don't actively cheat are better off than slightly more intelligent children who are bastards.

[dworkin]

1. Aren't intellegent men morally obligated morally obligated to "spread the seed" to as many woman, who are married to less intelligent men, as possible?

Why? The problem for males has always been. 'How do you ensure, your mate's progeny are yours?'. If every intelligent male is 'spreading the seed' then how do you ensure that the children are yours and not some other superlativly randy male's?
Anyways, the main traits being selected will not be academic intelligence but rather social intelligence. The ability to seduce multiple women will be the selecting factor. And not every lover-boy is a rocket scientist. He doesn't need to be.

2. Aren't women in general, regardless of intellegence, morally obligated to "cuckold" their husbands if they find a more intellegent man who is somewhat similar in appearance/physique (so she can fool her husband into thinking that the child is his)?*

Well, 30% apparently do that succesfully at the moment. And this is shown to be a trait of monogamous mammals, Gibbons have pretty much the same cheating rate as humans apparently. Vivaporous females have a 100% garruntee that any child that they have is theirs. You may well think, "well duh", but this singular fact has massive consequences to sexuality and indeed most behavour.

So, in our society intelligent men do try to spread their genes round. Rock stars, movies celebs and many US presidents spring to mind. What is being favoured here however, is the ability to appear sexually attractive and to seduce multiple females.

And intelligent females do 'shop around' for the better male. And succeed with astonishing regularity. Of course the traits they are looking for are also not academic ability but rather those that translate to higher sexiness. It's not for nothing that married women like Brad and Val (my wife and her girlfriends have girls nights and Willow is always played).

For further reading I suggest 'Dr Tatiania's Sex Guide to all Creation'

[Andrew J.]

So to answer your questions: sure, but good luck finding anyone willing to do it.

Shouldn't be too hard- estimates run that the percentage of children not fathered by their "father" (ie- the man that the woman is married to)
is between 10-20%.

I don't mean just finding people willing to cheat, obviously (well, not obvious to YOU, apparently), but people willing to cheat with smart people instead of pretty morons.

[l33telboi]

What do you think controls intelligence- the price of tea in China? Sigh....
Of course intelligence can be improved through selective breeding- intellegence is controlled by genetic material.

That's quite a leap there. Yes genetics controll you intelligence. But does that automatically lead to selective breeding being possible to increase intelligence? In any case, i'd like to see an article or something to back up the claim.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

So to answer your questions: sure, but good luck finding anyone willing to do it.

Shouldn't be too hard- estimates run that the percentage of children not fathered by their "father" (ie- the man that the woman is married to)
is between 10-20%.

I don't mean just finding people willing to cheat, obviously (well, not obvious to YOU, apparently), but people willing to cheat with smart people instead of pretty morons.

You act like its an either/or situation- its not. There are "pretty" intelligent people out there.

[Andrew J.]

You act like its an either/or situation- its not. There are "pretty" intelligent people out there.

Like me, for example.

Seriously though, people are more likely to marry for brains or personality and cheat for looks. And the dumber the better when it comes to cheating, you can keep them fooled that you're not married/planning to leave your spouse longer.

[Zero]

Other then your one objection, you've not stated why. Additionally, your one objection is flawed in that intelligent (or even average) "messed up" (which is a nebulous term that you've left completely undefined- hence it is meaningless), children, regardless of their orgin, are, and will be, a much bigger benefit to soceity then the stupid children.

This is actually an assumption you make, and one which isn't justified. You've never actually outlined specific negative effects that stupid people have on the world, just pointed out the single concept that religious fundamentalism may be curved if there were less stupid people out there.

Real life is not "Brave New World"- despite the claims of the book you don't "need" unintelligent people to fulfill certain roles in soceity- they end up in those roles because that is all that those individuals are capable of.


More intelligent people would mean that the standards of "competance" would rise in the more academically challenging fields- meaning that the jobs would go to the more qualified individuals. Additionally, you're assuming a static demand for unskilled labor- this is not the case. The demand for unskilled labor has been steadily declining due to the invention of more and more labor saving devices. This trend is going to continue- not reverse; meaning that people will increasingly be needed for their intellect- not for their bodily labor.

I already conceded this point above.

Besides all of this, cheating simply isn't the most effect means of propogating smart genes.

Actually, outside of marrying intellegence (which is not an option for many people), or remaining single and finding a source of "smart genes", its the ONLY way of propogating smart genes.

That's a lie. I mentioned another method in my previous post. If you're going to be wrong, at least be honest about it.

So... stupid people might do stupid things. When has that ever been a good reason not to do something that would better soceity?

Because it wouldn't better society if the stupid things they do would actually inhibit the means by which you're trying to make society better. In your example, killing the fucker who your wife fucked, or even just beating him well enough to teach him-and remember, smart people are good at learning-that fucking other people's wives can be a bad thing.

Of course there is that risk- and it will undoubtedly happen. However, I haven't seen any evidence that a child being raised by a single parent is, in and of itself, a major problem for soceity- nor have I seen any evidence that indicates that a child raised that way is a major problem for soceity- and if there is evidence of such, I would be shocked to see that these problems are anywhere near the magnitude of problems, in our soceity, caused by sheer stupidity.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cab ... TF-8&hl=en

Third link down. Couldn't get a direct link to work. Until you actually explain the specific social ills caused by simple stupidity, it's really up to you to prove that stupidity causes more problems then the potential effects of not having a father.

Having a father leads to greater cognitive developement, lower crime rates for the children involved, and a larger social network from which to draw social interactions from.

So you keep repeating- where is your proof? Where is your evidence that these less successful or "well-balanced" (another undefined- and hence meaningless term) people are anywhere near as much of a problem as the problems caused by outright stupidity?

Well, until you've shown specific causes of stupidity that negatively effect society, I can't really show that anything's greater than your vague generalities, can I? By well-ballanced, I mean that they're able to successfully function in modern society.

Shouldn't be too hard- estimates run that the percentage of children not fathered by their "father" (ie- the man that the woman is married to)
is between 10-20%.

Who's estimates? You really ought not ask me for proof if you're going to provide none. Why are these estimates to be reguarded as accurate?

What do you think controls intelligence- the price of tea in China? Sigh....
Of course intelligence can be improved through selective breeding- intellegence is controlled by genetic material.

Intelligence isn't just controlled by genetic material. Environmental influences matter as well, and what you consider the ethical imperative of cheating would actually create a worse environment for facilitating mental developement.