Do you support eugenics?

Under harsh environments Women will most of the time pick the man who can help them survive best. (Which is generally smart guys)

Under easier environments Women will more of the time pick the man who can satisfy their sexual attractive needs. (Which is generally Masculine guys)

It seems to be true, as our society has become easier in the West, Women seem to be going more, and more with the 2nd option.

Which is why our society might degenerate into some thing inferior.

 

It could just be the stank men give off.

 

My point is that high intellect is not moral or a measure of morality, it will only serve our particular moral inclinations. Whether they are "elite" or not, a person with high intelligence will only use that intelligence to serve their own interests- whatever they be.

In other words, figuratively speaking, both an angel and a demon can be highly intelligent. Each will strive to create a better heaven or a better hell.

No, lol. Consider, those developed parts of the world were not always developed but full of backwater people on the outskirts of the civilized world. This means that their intelligence was not inherent. What was England when Rome stood...or when Greece was in it's prime? And now that England stands among the greats where is Rome or Greece now? What happened to all that innovative and profound intellect and drive? I think we tend to frame certain peoples and civilizations as more or less this or that and fail to see it's just a matter of situation and environment, truthfully. Notice how the most developed nations tend to win the most Olympic medals. Why? Inherent ability or facility?

Besides...China's rise is not their own. There are a lot of unseen politics in that and the West and China have long been in communication- even while overtly considered enemies. It sounds a littl complicated, but consider the basic reality that just because the US calls someone a "bad guy" doesn't mean they aren't doing business with them. China is part of the world market, and that market has been engineered to be what it is today...by world players- not just Chinese innovation and grit. That's just the story they tell you...

 

Hmmm... now that you mention it, I can't really be sure.

I think that's people's common thought on eugenics. I think it's basically about people breeding in terms of their own definition of "better". (eye-color, height, brains, etc) At the more informed levels, I think they know relapses aren't impossible as much as they know that creating the "perfect" person isn't likely since perfection means different things in different situations. For instance, the perfect human on earth is likely going to be different than the perfect human in space and that, biologically, we might not be able to create a person that is perfect for both earth and space life.

I think we've been breeding ourselves for quite sometime, but in smaller ways. However, there certainly is the more nefarious sides to breeding- especially subtle or forced breeding programs. But this is not really for the sake of perfection or the eradication of faults, per se. I think perfection is just an idealistic and clever stand-in for what the more dangerous and nefarious types will really be using controlled human breeding for. Economic customization of the human race. That sounds silly, but that's exactly what they really do now. We are raised for the work place and in the future, with the coming of implants and cybernetic modifications, people will modify and breed themselves to be socially and economically competitive just as much as they will in debt themselves to be competitive.

 

Intelligence seems to be involved in creating empathy, in order to be empathetic in putting yourself in another person's position, clearly requires some level of intellectual processes.

So, on the whole I'd say intelligent people tend to be more empathetic, even though that's obviously not fully true.

I think intelligent people think more before they act, and thus make better decisions on the whole in life, politics, and social occasions.

 

For starters I disagree with England being the most superior intellectually, when it seems Germans, and Scottish have on the whole been intellectually more impressive.

Also there's many European powers which were oppressed, bogged down by war, and didn't plunder mass resources, which may actually be intellectually superior over those.

Poland comes to mind, Poland was actually more advanced in science during the Renaissance than were Germans, Scottish or the English, but that changed rapidly after the Partitions of Poland with Polish oppressed, and denied Polish education.

As for why Mediterranean's gained a civilization head start?

Mediterranean's simply were at a cross roads between Europe, India, Egypt, and Asia, therefor they could acquire information from other civilizations near by.

Mediterranean's also had a initial much larger population, Ancient Egypt had 1 -3 million, while the entire British Islands didn't reach a population this big until around 1000 AD, leading to more manpower.

Mediterranean's also developed agriculture first, around 10,000 years ago, which isn't surprising, as during this time Europe was in an ice age, while the Mediterranean region was not so cold, thus they could fiddle around with crops, while Europeans could not, this obviously kick-started the Mediterranean population sizes as then they could feed more.

 

Agriculture developed at different times in different parts of the world.

 

Yeah, I was just thinking about all the great Polish cars.

 

You mentioned allowing children to live in poverty, and that is what I responded to.

Yes, I think we should force compliance if they are on welfare. If a mother really wants to try gaming the system, she will be punished and have her kid removed from the home. In order for the plan to work, it cannot become another welfare racket.

Basically, get the IUD or don't expect any benefits. When you are no longer able to care for your child, you will be charged with neglecting a child, and the child will be removed from your home.

 

Of what?

I can't keep track of this thread!

 

I agree, and this is why I think it is prudent to focus on just not subsidizing the worst people, as opposed to selecting for specific traits. Some of the dumbest, nastiest criminals in this country have a YHUGE number of kids. In fact, every dysfunctional person I know has at least three kids, and the government is subsidizing every damn one of them.

 

"There cannot be enough possible evidence to conclude the point that genetics play the most important role in the outcome or behavior of an individual. The opposing viewpoint of environmental factors is not without its doubts either as to being the prominent factor influencing antisocial or criminal behavior of an individual. In this paper, there is more evidence supporting the genetics viewpoint, but that does not mean it is more important. With the research and studies having numerous flaws and the inability to adequately separate nature and nurture, there is still a great debate between genetic and environmental factors.
Researchers, however, have certainly come far in their progression, to the point where there is a large consensus of the fact that genes do influence behavior to a certain extent. Although not as widely publicized, it is the belief of the author that these same researchers also believe that environmental factors account for what cannot be explained by genes. Therefore it seems obvious to reach the conclusion that an individual's antisocial or criminal behavior can be the result of both their genetic background and the environment in which they were raised.

One researcher has proposed a theory relating to sociopaths and their antisocial behavior. According to the theory, a primary sociopath is lacking in moral development and does not feel socially responsible for their actions. This type of sociopath is a product of the individual's personality, physiotype, and genotype. A secondary sociopath develops in response to his or her environment because of the disadvantages of social competition. Living in an urban residence, having a low socioeconomic status, or poor social skills can lead an individual to being unsuccessful in reaching their needs in a socially desirable way, which can turn into antisocial or criminal behavior. The first type of sociopath is dependent on their genetic makeup and personality, while certain factors of the second type can also be heritable. Notwithstanding, the second type has a greater dependence on environmental factors (Miles & Carey, 1997). Perhaps from this review of both genetic and environmental factors, it seems clear to support the idea of the secondary sociopath type. An individual can inherit certain genes and when combined with the right environmental factors can lead them to engage in antisocial or criminal behavior.

Although not mentioned extensively in the text of the paper, there is a great need to try and identify those individuals, especially children, who may become susceptible to certain disorders or personality traits that can lead into antisocial, delinquent, or criminal behavior. Society should not try to imitate the era of controlled breeding, but rather focus on the treatment and rehabilitation of those individuals in need. Certain educational, environment enrichment programs have been shown to have a lasting effect on children if given by a certain age (Raine, Mellingen, Liu, Venables, & Mednick, 2003). If more of these programs could be developed, society could help prevent the future antisocial or criminal behavior of children.

Linhttp://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.htmlk:

 

How was Poland supposed to develop Capitalist cars, when it had a Communist economy?

It might not be cars, but Polish company Solaris Bus, and Couch has become one of Europe's leaders in bus manufacturing.

There are some Polish cars.

See below.

[video=youtube;m7OkBKFAjvk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7OkBKFAjvk[/video]

[video=youtube;ra34IaqJGnk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra34IaqJGnk[/video]

 

I've also spoken of breeding Humans with higher Oxytocin.

Higher Oxytocin leads to higher rates of compassion, charity, love, sympathy, empathy, bravery, racism, and healthier individuals etc.

Higher Oxytocin also leads to lower rates of Psychopathy, Sociopathy, greed, selfishness etc.

Really higher Oxytocin is everything we should be aiming for in society.

 

I lean more to the Leopard. Four hundred hp is a little light for a supercar.

 

We do not know enough about genetics, and especially the brain, to start breeding people for such specific traits. For all you know, this could result in a race of super babies incapable of making decisions to save their lives. There is such a thing as too much empathy, and I'm not sure we need to start screwing around with this.

On the same grounds, I reject eugenics policies aimed at eliminating psychopathy or criminal genes because those same behaviors are also correlated with leadership skills and intellectual autonomy--rebellious tendencies can be a good thing in the right balance. See East Asians for an example of what happens when you have a race of people who can't think for themselves and lack rebellious instincts.

I also reject attempts to eliminate mental disorders, at least directly, for similar reasons. Things like ADD and bipolar disorder are highly correlated with many beneficial traits, and I'm not sure it is a good idea to start tampering with that either.

Eugenics should only apply in a general sense and focus on those who are a proven net loss--this would encompass at risk of transmitting clusters of bad genes and bad culture. Preemptive elimination through gene alteration or government coercion is a very bad idea.

 

I'd select for high IQ's, and high Oxytocin.

I'm probably high in Oxytocin, I've always fallen in love a lot, and I've always been very moral.

Would you say that I'm a baby who's incapable of making decisions? LOL

The fact that higher Oxytocin is linked to higher rates of racism says it all.

Oxytocin seems to make people more passionate, be that love, or hate. (Keep in mind love, and hate aren't opposites, as it's indifference which is the opposite, as it doesn't care, while hate still cares much like love does)

Oxytocin also leads to bravery.

I happen to think a lot of tough guys are high in Oxytocin, they are often passionate guys, much like the Italians, they feel a lot, including pain, hatred, and anger.
(Which can propel them to be tough)

Meanwhile those who don't feel much, obviously won't feel much hatred, pain, or anger.

 

Actually Asians have the lowest genes for Oxytocin, Europeans are intermediate, and Africans the highest genes for Oxytocin, or the GG allele according to this article.

https://selfhacked.com/2015/03/22/t...-and-empathetic-genes-oxytocin-receptor-snps/

The GG version promotes efficient functioning of the oxytocin system and enhances the effects of oxytocin supplementation. (R)

The gene frequency varies by race: ~61% of Africans have it (in Africa), ~41% of Europeans (~30% of Finns) and ~10% of Asians

 

But, this is only ONE FACTOR in Oxytocin.

Testosterone blocks Oxytocin, and is higher in Blacks than Whites, and higher in Whites than Asians.

So, perhaps that might mean the Oxytocin differences aren't quite as different.

 

This actually seems to be confusing, from what we know about Oxytocin, why would the love hormone make Asians get divorced less, have less crime etc.

But, see this is why it seems IQ is also very important, as is very low MAO levels in deducing successful outcomes.

But, I'm not particularly surprised that Blacks are higher in Oxytocin, they are indeed typically more sociable, and passionate.

It seems the super warrior gene of very low MAO levels, which is highest in Blacks, and lowest in Asians is an ultimate factor which leads to such different outcomes, as does the brain development, from what we know criminals have a less developed frontal lobe, and while earlier studies definitely confirmed this in Blacks, I do suspect it's really true, Blacks do have smaller cranial capacities, and more dolichocephalic skulls, 2 factors which go against the frontal lobe.

 

I don't think you are soft, but I'm saying that the mechanism by which oxytocin works is not even close to fully understood, not to mention other neurotransmitters and hormones.

Even if it isn't Oxytocin that is connected to it, it may be connected to a number of things as yet unknown. The point is that you are trying to play around with things that no one understands, and it isn't even necessary. All we have to do is promote general fitness and discourage maladaptive behavior.

 

Indeed, there's much more to be understood.

None the less Oxytocin seems to be promising, with a wide range of benefits.

 

Indeed, it's very likely that ADD / ADHD is beneficial for hunter, gatherers.

in fact the 7 repeating allele of DRD4 a gene similar to ADD, as it lowers Dopamine levels, does seem to be beneficial to hunter - gatherers.

http://www.economist.com/node/11529402

Also the 7 repeating allele of DRD4 seems to increase longevity.

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/33/1/286.full