Eugenics

[Kaljamaha]

Innerbrat already responded to most of your (faulty) points, but I'll expand a little.

I'm sorry, I had to register just to respond to this madness. Mostly in response to Snyder.

First of all, what the hell is this "doing as nature intended" crap? You presume to know what nature intends? That alone makes you nutty, as nature doesn't intend anything. Nature IS. You probably think that evolution has a direction too, a goal it is progressing towards, yes? Care to explain what it is exactly that nature intends?

Nature doesn't intend on us doing anything, it is not a sentient being and therefore has no intentions, it simply is. Evolution is the mechanism in which we were created, it is evolution and it's servant 'Survival of the Fittest" that we have turned our back on. Care to disagree with that?

Yes. We can't turn our backs on nature. Or rather, we can, but it won't amount to anything, as we will still be subject to its laws. Specifically, evolution is ongoing all the time with human race, as is this "survival of the fittest". What you don't seem to grasp is that the "fittest" here refers to individuals with the greatest fitness, a term biologists use to describe the amount of viable offspring said individual produces.

Why is it that you want to prevent some people from reproducing, instead of doing the much more humane thing of encouraging the "rich and successful" people to have more kids?

Well lets see here...it seems obvious that you do not understand how people become rich and successful.

*snipped a lot of text on how successfull people don't have time for kids.*

It is obvious that you missed my point. These people have a choice, and if they choose to have less kids in favor of becoming socially/financially successful, they will have a worse fitness. Therefore, thinking in evolutionary terms, they are less successful.

Maybe because they are too busy?

Again, this is their choice.

Wow...this is just too easy. There are countless examples through history where a society has suffered needless casualties because they were just too compassionate to do the right thing.

Maybe. Now, care to estimate the number of lives saved by compassion? Besides, compassion predates society. So why wasn't this trait selected against when humans were still hunter-gatherers?

Whoa there. We hadn't really turned our backs on natural selection until we implemented social welfare, which allowed everyone to survive and have kids. Are you suggesting that social welfare has been around before recorded history?

Err, compassion does NOT equal social welfare. What, you think that before social programs were implemented, people were self-centered bastards who's only interest in other people was to directly benefit from them?

http://www.sghms.ac.uk/depts/laia/952.pdf
The number of cases if Cystic Fibrosis rises each and every year.

*snip*

Marina Frontali, Istituto di Medicina Sperimentale del CNR, Frascati (Roma)

There, a direct quote from a health professional saying that genetic diseases are on the rise.

All I see is that the prevalence of CF is rising, not the incidence, which is what you would expect, as our medical capabilities rise.

It seems you haven't been reading the research and statistics which clearly says things are getting worse and the number of stupid people are increasing.

Yup, must have missed those. In which journal have they appeared?

Now then. If you persist in this opinion, do me a favor.

State for the group that a popluation's genetic health is not affected by the influx of genes (recessive and dominate) that cause genetic diseases. And that this group's genetic well-being is just as good as a population whose environment selects out those individuals and prevents those genes from entry into the genome.

Just say that for the group so that we all understand your point.

Your knowlegde of genetics is just stellar.

Care to point out exactly how this influx of bad genes is happening? Granted, if one were to manufacture a strain of say, Drosophila, with an inordinate amount of defective genes, that population would obviously be inferior and less viable than a wild type one. However, this has dick to do with reality. There is no influx. What is happenin is a constant change in allele frequencies, which in turns produces new combinations from a near infinite range of possibilities. Change = Good.

[His Divine Shadow]

eugenics can also be the genering of humans to be more intelligent physically fit then the otherwise would be. i think its a good idea if its voluntary.

It doesn't work, it always gets too elitist, and that spells death for a society.

I dunno about you, but if I get the choice to make me, or any possible future children smarter, I will take it.

Anyone who whines unfair about that can just piss off I think.

[His Divine Shadow]

1. Genetic Engineering
2. Eugenics
3. Return to natural selection (eliminate social programs)
4. Extinction

I would take number 3. Geneering involves conscious decision by someone, and something as drastic as the purposeful altering of mankind is too important to be put into anyone's hands

You may make that decision about yourself, but you don't have any right to try and hold anyone else back, thats not up to you.

[Steven Snyder]

Care to point out exactly how this influx of bad genes is happening?

Dear me, you either have no clue what I am saying or you don't understand natural selection.

How does this influx of genes occur??? What are we talking about here!!!

In a natural selection environment, a person born with a debilitating genetic disease will not be successful and will produce few if any offspring. Their genetic disease will carry to few if any of anyone in the next generation, they have been eliminated by natural selection.

In our current society, a person with that same debilitating genetic disease are artificially allowed to survive. They have the same amount of chance to have children as everyone else, and even more if they do not have to work. Thus they create an equal amount or even more offspring than a healthy individual.

This is how the influx of genes happen.

If you can't understand this simple concept, I wonder why I am talking to you at all.

[Steven Snyder]

1. Genetic Engineering
2. Eugenics
3. Return to natural selection (eliminate social programs)
4. Extinction

I would take number 3. Geneering involves conscious decision by someone, and something as drastic as the purposeful altering of mankind is too important to be put into anyone's hands

You may make that decision about yourself, but you don't have any right to try and hold anyone else back, thats not up to you.

That is why we are choosing option #4. Which I am starting to believe is probably the best option for our species.

[His Divine Shadow]

I would take number 3. Geneering involves conscious decision by someone, and something as drastic as the purposeful altering of mankind is too important to be put into anyone's hands

You may make that decision about yourself, but you don't have any right to try and hold anyone else back, thats not up to you.

That is why we are choosing option #4. Which I am starting to believe is probably the best option for our species.

Why is the freedom of choice equal to extinction?

[Steven Snyder]

You may make that decision about yourself, but you don't have any right to try and hold anyone else back, thats not up to you.

That is why we are choosing option #4. Which I am starting to believe is probably the best option for our species.

Why is the freedom of choice equal to extinction?

It isn't that we are holding people back, it is that we are artifically allowing them to reproduce when they would not be able to do so otherwise.

[His Divine Shadow]

It isn't that we are holding people back, it is that we are artifically allowing them to reproduce when they would not be able to do so otherwise.

I was reffering to the idea of genetic enhancement on oneself or ones children.

[Kaljamaha]

How does this influx of genes occur??? What are we talking about here!!!

In a natural selection environment, a person born with a debilitating genetic disease will not be successful and will produce few if any offspring. Their genetic disease will carry to few if any of anyone in the next generation, they have been eliminated by natural selection.

What you describe is not an influx. There is no genetic material coming into the gene pool from the outside. You do know that genetic diseases are already present in the human gene pool? The fact is that even if you kill off all the sick people, heterozygotes (most hereditary diseases are caused by recessive genes) will still exist.

Oh, and care to define your "natural selection environment"? Since you have not challenged the fact that humans have been compassionate for their whole existence, this would render your point moot anyway.

In our current society, a person with that same debilitating genetic disease are artificially allowed to survive. They have the same amount of chance to have children as everyone else, and even more if they do not have to work. Thus they create an equal amount or even more offspring than a healthy individual.

Our current society doesn't really differ from the past ones, except that now we have the means to help the sick lead somewhat meaningful lives, as opposed to the wretched existence they had before. Again, compassion isn't exactly a new thing.

If you can't understand this simple concept, I wonder why I am talking to you at all.

Quite.

You have failed to comment on all the other points I made, or rather, rebuttals of your claims. I shall therefore conclude that you have nothing to add, and that you concede those points.

[Steven Snyder]

It isn't that we are holding people back, it is that we are artifically allowing them to reproduce when they would not be able to do so otherwise.

I was reffering to the idea of genetic enhancement on oneself or ones children.

I am 100% in favor of genetic enhancement of children, I think it is a far better idea than eugenics. Only problem is that we don't yet possess the technology to do it, and if the fundies don't move, we may never.

[PainRack]

Care to point out exactly how this influx of bad genes is happening?

Dear me, you either have no clue what I am saying or you don't understand natural selection.

How does this influx of genes occur??? What are we talking about here!!!

In a natural selection environment, a person born with a debilitating genetic disease will not be successful and will produce few if any offspring. Their genetic disease will carry to few if any of anyone in the next generation, they have been eliminated by natural selection.

In our current society, a person with that same debilitating genetic disease are artificially allowed to survive. They have the same amount of chance to have children as everyone else, and even more if they do not have to work. Thus they create an equal amount or even more offspring than a healthy individual.

This is how the influx of genes happen.

If you can't understand this simple concept, I wonder why I am talking to you at all.

You do know that in the past,societies like the Spartans and other civilisations practised euthanasia on deformed babies.

However,even with this practice of eugenics,why was it that deformed babies continued to be born?And even increase in some cases where populations were too enclosed for proper genetic diversity to arise?

Mutations will always occur,we will always have Down Syndrome with us,even if we eliminate all those with carrier genes.

[Steven Snyder]

What you describe is not an influx. There is no genetic material coming into the gene pool from the outside.

Now you are simply debating semantics. It is in influx because these genes that would normally be selected OUT are being allowed back IN.

You do know that genetic diseases are already present in the human gene pool? The fact is that even if you kill off all the sick people, heterozygotes (most hereditary diseases are caused by recessive genes) will still exist.

First of all I am not talking about killing anyone, so stop with the subtle Nazi implications. If you had bothered to read my posts I mention nothing about genocide.

Secondly I am perfectly aware that all genetic diseases would not vanish. The fact that you bring up such a blatantly obvious point really makes me wonder about you. And obviously you missed when I actually addressed this point. I would quote it, but I don't see the point.

You do realize that if you stopped people with known genetic disease from putting their genes back into the gene pool, the rate of genetic disease will drop. You do understand this concept don't you?

Oh, and care to define your "natural selection environment"? Since you have not challenged the fact that humans have been compassionate for their whole existence, this would render your point moot anyway.

You do realize there was a time in human history in which we did not have social welfare right? If you read back in history you will find instances of people who simply couldn't make it, going hungry, getting sick, and dying. Why aren't you aware of this?

Our current society doesn't really differ from the past ones, except that now we have the means to help the sick lead somewhat meaningful lives, as opposed to the wretched existence they had before. Again, compassion isn't exactly a new thing.

Hmmm, so tell me, how does natural selection deal with sick people? And why do you think that is? Helping the sick lead prosperous lives is a noble thing, but helping the sick have sick kids isn't a good idea.

You have failed to comment on all the other points I made, or rather, rebuttals of your claims. I shall therefore conclude that you have nothing to add, and that you concede those points.

I didn't bother to respond to all those points, because quite frankly. You depress the hell out of me.

[InnerBrat]

Just because somehting is natural doesn't mean it's good! Natural Selection isn't some God that has to be worshipped and emulated. It's a process that every single species struggles against.

But most iomportantly - if people with 'debilitating genentic diseases' are able to survive and have viable children, than in an evolutionary sense, the disease ceases to become debilitating. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

[UltraViolence83]

You do realize that if you stopped people with known genetic disease from putting their genes back into the gene pool, the rate of genetic disease will drop. You do understand this concept don't you?

Just shut the hell up right there. You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell others who can or can not have children. If you tried to stop ME from having kids, I'd beat you senseless (or maybe put some sense into you!).*

If you're so worried about healthy genes, why don't you and your hypothetical wife go for a screening or something to see if you both have "good blood?" If you or her don't, I'm so sure you'd stick to your mighty ideals of natural selection if you've your heart set on having kids one day.


*I should point out that my family to my knowledge has no genetic defects. Regardless, I'd defend others' rights to raise a family.

[Kaljamaha]

Now you are simply debating semantics. It is in influx because these genes that would normally be selected OUT are being allowed back IN.

Well then maybe you should have used another word to desribe the process.

First of all I am not talking about killing anyone, so stop with the subtle Nazi implications. If you had bothered to read my posts I mention nothing about genocide.

I implied no Nazism. However, if you like, change "killed off" to "prevented from having kids". End result for the gene pool is the same. So stop with the nitpicks.

Secondly I am perfectly aware that all genetic diseases would not vanish. The fact that you bring up such a blatantly obvious point really makes me wonder about you. And obviously you missed when I actually addressed this point. I would quote it, but I don't see the point.

Well then, just for clarity, please say, would in your system, people who are heterozygous for say, CF, be allowed to have kids? If yes, the overall situation will not improve by much, actually very little. If no, then you're preventing a sizeable proportion of the population from procreating, in the process wiping out a great deal of genetic variety.

You do realize that if you stopped people with known genetic disease from putting their genes back into the gene pool, the rate of genetic disease will drop. You do understand this concept don't you?

The drop would be miniscule, unless you also eliminated all the heterozygotes from the equation. Refer to the above comment.

You do realize there was a time in human history in which we did not have social welfare right? If you read back in history you will find instances of people who simply couldn't make it, going hungry, getting sick, and dying. Why aren't you aware of this?

What the fuck is it with you and social welfare? People have been helping others for time immemorial.

Hmmm, so tell me, how does natural selection deal with sick people? And why do you think that is? Helping the sick lead prosperous lives is a noble thing, but helping the sick have sick kids isn't a good idea.

Don't you fucking get it? Natural selection is what happens, regardless of the cause. If you get zapped by lightning and die, your unique mix of genes is removed from the pool. Voilà, natural selection at work. Why the hell do you insist on natural selection having a purpose, or some abstract criteria?

And regarding the sick, as Innerbrat already pointed out, if they can overcome their disease (in the context of our society or not, it doesn't matter), there is little to select against. Or rather, since "selected against" is a misleading statement, I would say that they are not disadvantaged in any way.

I didn't bother to respond to all those points, because quite frankly. You depress the hell out of me.

Would that perhaps be because I'm right?

[Steven Snyder]

Care to point out exactly how this influx of bad genes is happening?

I implied no Nazism. However, if you like, change "killed off" to "prevented from having kids". End result for the gene pool is the same. So stop with the nitpicks.

The end result (as far as the gene pool is concerned) is the same but the means are clearly different. If you consider mass-executions versus allowing people to live out their lives 'nitpicking', then so be it.

Well then, just for clarity, please say, would in your system, people who are heterozygous for say, CF, be allowed to have kids? If yes, the overall situation will not improve by much, actually very little. If no, then you're preventing a sizeable proportion of the population from procreating, in the process wiping out a great deal of genetic variety.

So by your own admission, preventing the homozygous carriers of genetic diseases to put their genes back into the pool will gradually strengthen our genome.
Concession accepted.

And to answer your other question, would I allow known carriers of CF to put their genes back into the pool. Unless they were truly extraordinary individuals, No.
Yes I would be willing to wipe out a large part of our genetic diversity, I think it is that important.

The drop would be miniscule, unless you also eliminated all the heterozygotes from the equation. Refer to the above comment.

Again, concession accepted, you have just admitted my point is valid.

What the fuck is it with you and social welfare? People have been helping others for time immemorial.

Yes, welfare has existed through time in some fashion or another, but never at the level it does now.

Don't you fucking get it? Natural selection is what happens, regardless of the cause. If you get zapped by lightning and die, your unique mix of genes is removed from the pool. Voilà, natural selection at work. Why the hell do you insist on natural selection having a purpose, or some abstract criteria?

Yes I get it, but I don't think you do. Natural selection is a method in which individuals with a bad set of genes either do not contribute back into the gene pool or do so on a limited basis.

It's very odd that you point out an example of a freak accident that has ZERO to do with natural selection. None of your genes will help a human who is struck by lightning, they are not much more likely to survive than anyone else.

Now natural selection is supposed to work (not by random lightning strikes) but by the simple understanding that those who are more adapted to their environment (stronger, healthier, smarter, whatever the environment requires) will be able to have more offspring by securing more resources than the less-successful. This is it, that is natural selection in a simplefied form.

Now why doesn't this work? Because in our society the people who are less successful actually have the opportunity (and motivation) to have more kids than the successful. But I have already said this before...

And regarding the sick, as Innerbrat already pointed out, if they can overcome their disease (in the context of our society or not, it doesn't matter), there is little to select against. Or rather, since "selected against" is a misleading statement, I would say that they are not disadvantaged in any way.

Your entire statement is internally inconsistent.

If someone has to "overcome their disease" then they cannot at the same time be "disadvantaged in any way". This is especially true when you put them in competition with similar individuals than haven't had to devote those personal resources to such a challenge.

I didn't bother to respond to all those points, because quite frankly. You depress the hell out of me.

Would that perhaps be because I'm right?

No, it would be because you are wrong.

And not just that you are wrong, it is that you are denying reality because you aren't comfortable with it. You are everything I cannot stand about Fundies who ignore little bits about their bible because they don't like to mention the problematic spots.

But hey, maybe I am being too hard on you.

I have provided data behind my case, you haven't. So now is the time to let you prove your argument to me, I will accept your response with an open mind.

Let's start easy, why don't you provide me some statistics that show that the average IQ isn't dropping in American and Europe we have lost about 5 to 8 points since the 1800's and are losing about 1 point per generation currently.
Please prove to me that my dark and dismal vision of the future is false, you should start with this little thing right here, as I would be most receptive to it.

[InnerBrat]

You are everything I cannot stand about Fundies who ignore little bits about their bible because they don't like to mention the problematic spots.

If you hate that so much, then why aren't you addressing ANY of my points?

1) Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it's good. Natural Seelction certainly cannot be predicted and imitated

2) As far as Natural Selection goes - once a genetic characteristic ceases to prevent reproduction, it ceases to be a genetic hinderance.

3) Dramatically reducing the gene pool would cause a massive RISE in genetic disease that you haven't even heard of due to inbreeding.

4) IQ is bullshit bullshit bullshit! It does not measure anything tangible in the slightest sense, it is heavily culturally influenced and it has been develpoed by men who wanted to proove that certain people were inherently stupider than others. You can't use it to support any genetic arguments at all, so stop trying!

[UltraViolence83]

4) IQ is bullshit bullshit bullshit! It does not measure anything tangible in the slightest sense, it is heavily culturally influenced and it has been develpoed by men who wanted to proove that certain people were inherently stupider than others. You can't use it to support any genetic arguments at all, so stop trying!

It was developed to test for learning disabilities in school children. I'm assuming you're talking about its relationship to European racism, which it wasn't made for. At least I think that's correct...
Innerbrat, I'd just give up on him. This thread has long since stopped going anywhere which we haven't been over before.


Yeah, IQ tests are kinda silly...Like I said earilier, I've taken them and I've been either somewhat slow or mildly gifted. Now is a test in which you can come out with two drastic opposites a good source of objective evidence? They're still fun to take, though.

[InnerBrat]

It was developed to test for learning disabilities in school children.

Not quite, it was first compiled to test for education defiencies in school children (i.e. something to be improved upon, not something innate)

I'm assuming you're talking about its relationship to European racism, which it wasn't made for. At least I think that's correct...

(not wanting to get xenophobic but..) actually abotu American rascism - it's been used to 'proove' that blacks in the army aduring WW1 were stupid, and that the quality of immigrants were gradually declining, among others.

Innerbrat, I'd just give up on him. This thread has long since stopped going anywhere which we haven't been over before.

But he keeps coming back for more, ignoring everything he wants to.

[Kaljamaha]

Mr. Snyder, you are so fucking stupid my head hurts.

Actually you picked the word, not I.

Liar. You were the one to first use it.

State for the group that a popluation's genetic health is not affected by the influx of genes (recessive and dominate) that cause genetic diseases.

This was the first time the word came up.

The end result (as far as the gene pool is concerned) is the same but the means are clearly different. If you consider mass-executions versus allowing people to live out their lives 'nitpicking', then so be it.

We were discussing the effects on the gene pool. That the ethics of the whole affair are squarely against you was never a point of contention.

So by your own admission, preventing the homozygous carriers of genetic diseases to put their genes back into the pool will gradually strengthen our genome.
Concession accepted.

And to answer your other question, would I allow known carriers of CF to put their genes back into the pool. Unless they were truly extraordinary individuals, No.
Yes I would be willing to wipe out a large part of our genetic diversity, I think it is that important.

Sigh... you seem to have serious reading comprehension problems. An enlightened intellectual such as yourself would surely know that the resulting loss of genetic variety would be a much greater harm to the human race than the benefit gained from wiping out ONE genetic disease. That would be 4-5% of the population, according to the article you posted, for CF alone.

Not to mention that you want to wipe out all the other inherited diseases, and people of lower intellect, etc. Exactly who the is going to be left? And how the hell are they supposed to form a viable population?!? Again, not even touching the ethics of the thing.

Yes, welfare has existed through time in some fashion or another, but never at the level it does now.

So you're finally ready to admit that social welfare =! compassion, and that compassion has always existed in humans?

Yes I get it, but I don't think you do. Natural selection is a method in which individuals with a bad set of genes either do not contribute back into the gene pool or do so on a limited basis.

It's very odd that you point out an example of a freak accident that has ZERO to do with natural selection. None of your genes will help a human who is struck by lightning, they are not much more likely to survive than anyone else.

Oh for fucks sake! Natural selection is a not a method per se. It is a term used to describe what happens. Are you claiming that chance has NO bearing in determining who has, and how many, children?

Now natural selection is supposed to work (not by random lightning strikes) but by the simple understanding that those who are more adapted to their environment (stronger, healthier, smarter, whatever the environment requires) will be able to have more offspring by securing more resources than the less-successful. This is it, that is natural selection in a simplefied form.

Now why doesn't this work? Because in our society the people who are less successful actually have the opportunity (and motivation) to have more kids than the successful. But I have already said this before...

Repeating the same fucking shit doesn't make it any more true. Once again, natural selection is a term used to describe the fact that those individuals who produce more viable offspring shall have their genes propagate in the population. The exact reasons that enable them to have more offspring mean dick. More offspring, that's all that counts.

Now, who is more successful in passing along their genes, the couple that has one child, or the couple that has three? Again, it doesn't matter WHY it happens, what matters is that it DOES happens. Its time for you to review the meaning of the word "successful", since you vainly attempt to use it interchangeably in both social and evolutionary context.

Your entire statement is internally inconsistent.

If someone has to "overcome their disease" then they cannot at the same time be "disadvantaged in any way". This is especially true when you put them in competition with similar individuals than haven't had to devote those personal resources to such a challenge.

I'm getting so fucking tired of this shit. For the last time, they are not in such an environment, nor have they been ever. This compassion thing, remember?

You are everything I cannot stand about Fundies who ignore little bits about their bible because they don't like to mention the problematic spots.

I'm not the fundie here. Try the mirror.

I have provided data behind my case, you haven't. So now is the time to let you prove your argument to me, I will accept your response with an open mind.

Oh bullshit! You have provided all of ONE article that doesn't even support your argument.

Let's start easy, why don't you provide me some statistics that show that the average IQ isn't dropping in American and Europe we have lost about 5 to 8 points since the 1800's and are losing about 1 point per generation currently.

Let's start with you proving it is happening? When you have done that, we'll get back to the issue.

Please prove to me that my dark and dismal vision of the future is false, you should start with this little thing right here, as I would be most receptive to it.

I can think up a couple of thing you would be most receptive to...

[Steven Snyder]

State for the group that a popluation's genetic health is not affected by the influx of genes (recessive and dominate) that cause genetic diseases.

This was the first time the word came up.

Mea Culpa

I missed that article on going back through them all. Sorry about that.

Sigh... you seem to have serious reading comprehension problems. An enlightened intellectual such as yourself would surely know that the resulting loss of genetic variety would be a much greater harm to the human race than the benefit gained from wiping out ONE genetic disease. That would be 4-5% of the population, according to the article you posted, for CF alone.

We have survived with fewer numbers and fewer genetic variety before. And I think that is even further mitigated by the fact that we have a global pool now with a greater diversity than we ever have had before.

Not to mention that you want to wipe out all the other inherited diseases, and people of lower intellect, etc. Exactly who the is going to be left? And how the hell are they supposed to form a viable population?!? Again, not even touching the ethics of the thing.

I think with a global population of a few (what is it now, six) billion people we won't have that much trouble. Even in the US where there are about 256 million people, if we selected out a whopping 99% we still would have over 2 million people having kids. If you don't think that there is going to be enough people why don't you tell me how many you would expect would be selected out and why the new gene pool wouldn't be high enough?

Yes, welfare has existed through time in some fashion or another, but never at the level it does now.

So you're finally ready to admit that social welfare =! compassion, and that compassion has always existed in humans?

Social welfare is borne out of compassion, it is not compassion in itself. Compassion is just another human emotion.

Oh for fucks sake! Natural selection is a not a method per se. It is a term used to describe what happens. Are you claiming that chance has NO bearing in determining who has, and how many, children?

Of course chance has something to do with it. But those who are better suited to their environment have better odds when they roll the dice.

Repeating the same fucking shit doesn't make it any more true. Once again, natural selection is a term used to describe the fact that those individuals who produce more viable offspring shall have their genes propagate in the population. The exact reasons that enable them to have more offspring mean dick. More offspring, that's all that counts.

Here we are again. In society we have elminated the natural environment that would normally enforce natural selection and created our own environment. In our new environment those that are on the bottom end of the economic and educational scale have the most offspring and those at the top, the wealthy and educated have the least amount of children.

This is our problem. If you don't believe that this poses a problem to our society then just say so.

Now, who is more successful in passing along their genes, the couple that has one child, or the couple that has three? Again, it doesn't matter WHY it happens, what matters is that it DOES happens. Its time for you to review the meaning of the word "successful", since you vainly attempt to use it interchangeably in both social and evolutionary context.

Successful in our artifically created system, yes. But if the system ever falls will they be as successful?

Your entire statement is internally inconsistent.

If someone has to "overcome their disease" then they cannot at the same time be "disadvantaged in any way". This is especially true when you put them in competition with similar individuals than haven't had to devote those personal resources to such a challenge.

I'm not the fundie here. Try the mirror.

I am really trying to get you to change my mind, that doesn't sound like a fundie to me.

Oh bullshit! You have provided all of ONE article that doesn't even support your argument.

And you have provide ZERO...

But here...how about some additional references.

Four types of data indicating an inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility have been presented. There is evidence for an inverse relationship between (a) SES and fertility, (b) intelligence and number of siblings, (c) intelligence and fertility, and (d) educational level and fertility. All four lines of evidence point in the same direction and to the same conclusion: Fertility has been dysgenic in the economically developed world since the early decades of the 19th century and in most of the economically developing world during the 20th century. The data showing an inverse association between SES and fertility go back to the cohorts born in the second quarter of the 19th century. This means that dysgenic fertility has been present for about five generations. Retherford and Sewell's (1988) American study indicated that the genotypic decline was 0.64 IQ points for the generation born in 1940. If this figure is projected back for five generations, it can be concluded that American Whites have suffered a genotypic decline of 3.20 IQ points over the five generations. This is almost certainly an underestimate because dysgenic fertility was considerably greater in the earlier generations than among the 1940 cohort from which the figure of 0.64 IQ points is derived. When this is taken into account, the magnitude of the deterioration of genotypic intelligence in the United States appears to have been about 5 IQ points since the early 19th century. Dysgenic fertility has probably produced a similar deterioration in Europe, considering that dysgenic fertility in relation to SES was present in the early 19th century and that the magnitude of the inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility has been about the same. In the economically developing world, such as the Latin American countries represented in Table 6, dysgenic fertility is very strong, but has probably not been in place for so long. The proposition that the genotypic intelligence of modern populations is deteriorating is not directly verifiable but is an inference derived from two premises: the inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility, and the heritability of intelligence. Because the two premises are solid, the inference appears to be solid. Recently, however, the inference has been challenged by Preston and Campbell (1993), who claimed to demonstrate that dysgenic fertility is compatible, after some generations, with a stable population IQ. Preston restates this argument in the present volume (chapter 15). In my opinion, the argument is flawed, for the reasons given by Coleman (1993) and Loehlin. If Preston and Campbell's argument were correct, natural selection by differential reproductive fitness would not work, and the fundamental theorem of biology since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species would be overthrown. I do not believe that biology is ready for such a drastic paradigm shift. The dysgenic fertility and consequent deterioration of genotypic intelligence that have been in place since the second quarter of the 19th century have been accompanied by environmental improvements that have brought about rises in phenotypic intelligence. It can be predicted that the environmental improvements will in due course show diminishing returns and peter out. If dysgenic fertility is still present when this point is reached, it can be anticipated that phenotypic intelligence will start to decline. Insofar as the maintenance of a high level of civilization depends on the intelligence of its population, the quality of U.S. civilization will also deteriorate. It is a curious fact that the evidence pointing to this conclusion has received no mention in contemporary textbooks of psychology and sociology.

Let's start with you proving it is happening? When you have done that, we'll get back to the issue.

I hope the above publication will provide some insight into my point of view.

Please prove to me that my dark and dismal vision of the future is false, you should start with this little thing right here, as I would be most receptive to it.

I can think up a couple of thing you would be most receptive to...

Oh threats of physical violence...wow, I am suprised.

I gave you a chance to provide something...anything solid to your case but you didn't. Give me a link to a study, some statistics, give me the name of a book in the library which shows that we aren't falling into dysgenics. I am giving you every chance to change my mind, but you have to provide something for me.

And what did you say to me in response...
We don't agree on a topic and I can't change your mind, so I am gonna beat you up

...this is why you depress me...

[Steven Snyder]

You are everything I cannot stand about Fundies who ignore little bits about their bible because they don't like to mention the problematic spots.

If you hate that so much, then why aren't you addressing ANY of my points?

Sorry, Innerbrat I have been a bit busy recently. I apologize for my lack of attention to you and will get to your points right now.

1) Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it's good. Natural Seelction certainly cannot be predicted and imitated

Which is why I prefer the genetic engineering approach or eugenics. Though it is likely that left to our own devices natural selection should make for a smarter, healthier human. But your right, the path is ultimately indeterminable.

2) As far as Natural Selection goes - once a genetic characteristic ceases to prevent reproduction, it ceases to be a genetic hinderance.

Very true, but if a characteristic makes an individual less able to acquire resources and reproduce than another, then it is a genetic hinderance. A genetic problem doesn't have to stop reproduction, but it may slow it. But as far as NS goes, a defect that doesn't interfere with the above isn't really considered a problem.

3) Dramatically reducing the gene pool would cause a massive RISE in genetic disease that you haven't even heard of due to inbreeding.

As I pointed out, even if you selected out a massive 99% of the US, you would still have a population of over 2 million. If that is not enough to create a viable gene pool then please correct me on the matter.

4) IQ is bullshit bullshit bullshit! It does not measure anything tangible in the slightest sense, it is heavily culturally influenced and it has been develpoed by men who wanted to proove that certain people were inherently stupider than others. You can't use it to support any genetic arguments at all, so stop trying!

Yes it is cuturally influenced, but the studies that I am looking at don't compare people from different cultures. They compare those from the same spot on the ladder, but just with different times. IQ is somewhat subjective, it has to be otherwise everyone from Equatorial Guniea would be mentally retarted.

An IQ test is not designed to be and will never be the end-all test to determine the potential of an individual. It can however serve as a general guide that can give you a rough estimate, especially if you keep the test within a certain group. It is when these numbers within the groups start falling that I get concerned.

Innerbrat, I understand your points. I know where you are coming from and I know that my stance on this isn't a very popular one. I do respect your opinion but I have to disagree with you on the matter. But if you want to try to change my mind, I will keep it open.

[Kaljamaha]

I must take back some of the mean things I said about you. Your last post was rather intelligent, even if I don't agree with your ideas, and not condescending like your previous responses.

We have survived with fewer numbers and fewer genetic variety before. And I think that is even further mitigated by the fact that we have a global pool now with a greater diversity than we ever have had before.

I think with a global population of a few (what is it now, six) billion people we won't have that much trouble. Even in the US where there are about 256 million people, if we selected out a whopping 99% we still would have over 2 million people having kids. If you don't think that there is going to be enough people why don't you tell me how many you would expect would be selected out and why the new gene pool wouldn't be high enough?

Yes, the human population of the earth was much lower before. Yes, we have grown to the current numbers from that population. However, I feel that there can never be too much, not even enough variety. If you drastically cut down the variety of our gene pool, or any kind of variety for that matter (location, habbits, whatever), you open up a possibility for a single entity (bad word I know, english isn't my native language) to do a great amount of damage to the population. Pathogen interactions come to mind.

Here we are again. In society we have elminated the natural environment that would normally enforce natural selection and created our own environment. In our new environment those that are on the bottom end of the economic and educational scale have the most offspring and those at the top, the wealthy and educated have the least amount of children.

This is our problem. If you don't believe that this poses a problem to our society then just say so.

Human society in all its forms IS our natural environment. I wonder what you perceive our natural environment should be? Oh, and I don't think its a problem.

Successful in our artifically created system, yes. But if the system ever falls will they be as successful?

I find our "system" is far from artificial. I say it is as it should be. And worrying about some abstract phenomenon in the fututre which would drastically change our environment is rather pointless. Traits that help us prepare for seldom seen dramatic changes in the future actually hinder us from progressing today. For example, animals, which I would assume you believe to live in their natural environments, are not prepared for rare catastrophies, such as volcano eruptions.

But here...how about some additional references.

*snip*

I hope the above publication will provide some insight into my point of view.

I'll check it out, and I'll get back to you when I have read it through. Thoroughly.

Oh threats of physical violence...wow, I am suprised.

I gave you a chance to provide something...anything solid to your case but you didn't. Give me a link to a study, some statistics, give me the name of a book in the library which shows that we aren't falling into dysgenics. I am giving you every chance to change my mind, but you have to provide something for me.

And what did you say to me in response...
We don't agree on a topic and I can't change your mind, so I am gonna beat you up

...this is why you depress me...

Well, believe it or not, I actually didn't even think that what I said could be interpreted so. In hindsight, maybe. But whatever, it was more like "gaping emptiness in head" and "intelligence". Besides, the burden of proof is on you, as you are asserting that we are "getting dumber" and "more laden with genetic defects". As I said, I'll get back to you when I've fully checked out the article you posted parts of.

[Steven Snyder]

I must take back some of the mean things I said about you. Your last post was rather intelligent, even if I don't agree with your ideas, and not condescending like your previous responses.

Honestly, I am not trying to be arrogant. Of course there could have been a day when I may have just been in a bad mood.

Yes, the human population of the earth was much lower before. Yes, we have grown to the current numbers from that population. However, I feel that there can never be too much, not even enough variety. If you drastically cut down the variety of our gene pool, or any kind of variety for that matter (location, habbits, whatever), you open up a possibility for a single entity (bad word I know, english isn't my native language) to do a great amount of damage to the population. Pathogen interactions come to mind.

You are correct, if the US did this and was reduced down to 2 million people (for the purposes of breeding), we would fare very badly against a biological attack, or plague, or other malady.

To really think seriously about doing this we would have to come up with a figure of what percentage would be sterlized. And that is far more research than I have time for...I need to be somewhere else in about 1 minute as I write this.

Human society in all its forms IS our natural environment. I wonder what you perceive our natural environment should be? Oh, and I don't think its a problem.

Then we simply disagree on this point. You simply don't think that eugenics are needed, I don't agree with your opinion, but I do respect it.

Well, believe it or not, I actually didn't even think that what I said could be interpreted so. In hindsight, maybe. But whatever, it was more like "gaping emptiness in head" and "intelligence". Besides, the burden of proof is on you, as you are asserting that we are "getting dumber" and "more laden with genetic defects". As I said, I'll get back to you when I've fully checked out the article you posted parts of.

This may be a cultural thing, and I apologize for my comments if I misinterpreted your meaning. In my part of the woods, if you see someone say that to another, grab the popcorn because you're in for dinner and a show.