Is Artificial Selection the Key to Humanity's Future?

[Nachtwolf]

Hawk isn't promoting forced sterilization.

Then what is he promoting?

Voluntary eugenics. Look:

From The Book of Millennium, By Sherman Hawk:

Therefore I admonish you: Do not reproduce if it means creating humans of poor intelligence. If you are yourself of meager intelligence, do not be ashamed, but be responsible, and avoid passing your genes on to others. If you are of average intelligence and reasonably free from genetic diseases, or else if your intelligence is lacking but you feel that you must pass on your genes, then reproduce below replacement level to prevent overpopulation which threatens our planet more seriously with each passing year. You who are of high intelligence bear the greatest burden, yet it is a burden of joy, if you let it be — you must keep these genes alive, and copy them as frequently as is feasible, for they are more valuable than gold, and without them all the treasures of the Earth are as pearls thrown before swine.

I strongly suggest that you develop a better understanding of Hawk's views before you decide that you want to argue against them. For a quick overview of Hawk's positions, you can check the following page and read through the "Common Objections to Eugenics."

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/essays.htm

Nachtwolf, are you a creationist?

No. I was merely addressing a fundamentalist Christian in terms he could appreciate.


--Mark

 

[billy_boy_999]

i am glad that nachtwolf has steered this topic back to the real intersection of the argument, let us not pretend that hawk is a nazi or put words in people's mouths, he is promulgating an attitude towards our conscious directing of our own genetic evolution, a valid viewpoint...especially in light of our advancements in genetic engineering and dna science...

but i for one find a rather large problem with this philosophy of conscious genetic propogation, or social genetic engineering...it rests it's value on the false assumption that humans can know what is the most desirable genetic trait to pass on, nachtwolf has written or quoted a statement that suggest 'intelligence' is the prima facie 'gold' of our genetic inheritance...i could list a lot of other traits that i would prefer be passed on place of intelligence (sensibility, artistic vocation, generosity, foresight, compassion, creativity, beauty, big tits, etc...) but then these are just MY facile opinions of what i think is valuable in humanity's genetic inheritence...the point of natural selection is that the most desirable genetic traits ARE ALWAYS passed on, it is unavoidable...sexuality and natural selection have long been our impartial judges of genetic value...

it is possible that this is changing and so hawk's viewpoints do need to be considered...but they need to be considered more thoroughly...in the end personal self-interest will guide evolution and procreation, that is an inherent human desire to have offspring, just as it always has, not altruistic genetic planning...

 

[Nereid]

A discussion of timescales-likely-to-be-realistic might help here.

For example, how many generations of highly successful voluntary eugenics are needed for a significant change in the global human gene pool?

In this period of N generations, what are the likely milestones in human abilities in genetic engineering (defined in any, reasonably specific, way you choose)? If 'likely' is too difficult, try the extreme ranges - can't possibly happen; highly unlikely to NOT happen.

Over this same period, what are the major environmental changes that will affect homo sap. and its ecological niches? Best to choose a metric such as probability x impact. For example, the probability of global extinction through large asteroid/comet impact is indeed very small, but its impact is totally devastating (for homo sap.; for bacteria living 10km underground it's irrelevant).

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Zero
Is this going to turn into one of those stupid "you can't have morals unless you believe in (your mythology here)" discussions?

No. I'm not trying to convert you, Zero, but I am interested in your philosophy, which is the whole point of this section of the forum.

If I accepted evolution, I can see myself taking one of two positions:
A. that any concept of morals is a meaningless consequence of natural selection, so I would abandon them and live as I please, or
B. that the survival of the human species is the top priority, and that any measures needed to ensure this are taken, regardless of temporary suffering

So what is your position? Why should humans have any inherent worth apart from their contribution to the survival of the species?

- As a side note - In my home state of Virginia, a eugenics program was tested decades ago. Maybe I'll look up an article about it sometime, but guess what - it failed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If I accepted evolution, I can see myself taking one of two positions:
A. that any concept of morals is a meaningless consequence of natural selection, so I would abandon them and live as I please, or
B. that the survival of the human species is the top priority, and that any measures needed to ensure this are taken, regardless of temporary suffering

Sorry for breaking into this conversation, but I just wanted to note that there is a third alternative: you might have developed through evolution to PREFER a certain moral stance. Such as don't kill members of the tribe, but kill outlanders if the tribal consensus requires it.

 

[Nachtwolf]

it rests it's value on the false assumption that humans can know what is the most desirable genetic trait to pass on

No, it rests its value on the assumption that humans have subjective personal opinions about what are desirable traits (yes, plural) to pass on.

Given the choice, would you rather have been born intelligent, or unintelligent? Healthy, or diseased? Hardworking and focussed, or lazy and unable to concentrate? Civilization depends on all these traits, and as these traits are all being threatened by current dysgenic trends, civilization is ultimately in danger.

Pay special attention to the facts that:

* The need for eugenics, from the standpoint of the individual, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally care about the continuation of civilization and the welfare of those who live after I die. If you do not, then you have no obligation to support eugenics.

* Selecting in favor of intelligence does not mean ignoring other traits. It is possible to promote "sensibility, artistic vocation, generosity, foresight, compassion, creativity, beauty, big tits, etc..." although various studies have found all of these, with the exception of foresight, to correlate with IQ. (Yes, I understand that in a study of Austalian college women, breast size was positively related to IQ.)

* The genetic component to our intelligence is currently being eroded.

the point of natural selection is that the most desirable genetic traits ARE ALWAYS passed on

No, selective pressures are blind and lack any human concept of "desirability." Currently, selective pressures created by civilization favor ill health and stupidity.

A discussion of timescales-likely-to-be-realistic might help here.

Current dysgenic trends in reproduction and immigration are eroding the genetic component to IQ at a rate of roughly 2 points per generation throughout the Western world. This means that in less than 200 years the average IQ will have declined so far that, because of this and other other problems, Western civilization will be destroyed.

For example, how many generations of highly successful voluntary eugenics are needed for a significant change in the global human gene pool?

You will never understand any of this as long as you insist on viewing the subject from a global perspective. My own primary reason for promoting eugenics is to preserve Western culture, while in Africa, for instance, a better reason would be to finally end the countless generations of savagery and superstition, but the difficulties of African eugenics would be entirely different from Western eugenics. Currently it is in China where the best hope of eugenics lies - although it is argued by some that their reasons to employ eugenics are to ultimately dominate other nations.

I just wanted to note that there is a third alternative:

This deserves another thread.


--Mark

 

[Rader]

eugenics

People often believe that they must oppose eugenics since they oppose cloning, ethnic cleansing, abortion, or genetic manipulation. I wonder why?

Diversity seems to be a positve aspect of evolution, since we are not extinct.

I have read the link on eugenics, if those interested in it are so concerned about the moral issue behind it. And i say that because the link defends what they preach more than practice what they preach. Then why is its main concern intellegence and not maybe a more important priority, which is elimination of genetic diseases.

Currently it is in China where the best hope of eugenics lies - although it is argued by some that their reasons to employ eugenics are to ultimately dominate other nations.

I could see how a nation could be forced into doing this as part of its national defence budget.

 

[Nereid]

Nacthwolf: *SNIP
Given the choice, would you rather have been born intelligent, or unintelligent? Healthy, or diseased? Hardworking and focussed, or lazy and unable to concentrate? Civilization depends on all these traits, and as these traits are all being threatened by current dysgenic trends, civilization is ultimately in danger.
*SNAP *SNIP
Current dysgenic trends in reproduction and immigration are eroding the genetic component to IQ at a rate of roughly 2 points per generation throughout the Western world. This means that in less than 200 years the average IQ will have declined so far that, because of this and other other problems, Western civilization will be destroyed.

Current social, political, economic and demographic trends will mean that, well before 2204, 'Western civilization' will be but one small part of the rich and diverse 'global civilization'. No need for eugenics? Or rather a need for global eugenics?

(BTW, Nachtwolf seems a little uncertain about whether it's
'civilization' (Nereid's emphasis):
"The need for eugenics, from the standpoint of the individual, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally care about the continuation of civilization and the welfare of those who live after I die. If you do not, then you have no obligation to support eugenics.[/color]

'Western civilization': as above

or the US' current position as the only global superpower.)

Back in the Social Sciences sub-forum, Nachtwolf made several assertions on why he feels the US average IQ will decline at ~2/generation, and what disasters would be visited upon the US should its average national IQ decline by x. Nereid, and others, challenged Nachtwolf on these assertions; rather than repeat the debate here, interested readers may refer to the relevant threads elsewhere in PF.

 

[Nachtwolf]

People often believe that they must oppose eugenics since they oppose cloning, ethnic cleansing, abortion, or genetic manipulation. I wonder why?

Because people are stupid, and confuse their abhorrence for squares and rhombuses with a moral imperative to oppose quadrilaterals. This kind of general stupidity which saturates humanity is a big reason why I want eugenics.

Diversity seems to be a positve aspect of evolution, since we are not extinct.

Yes, and as I've already stated, eugenics is not about the elimination of diversity, is it?

I have read the link on eugenics

Well, it's a pity that you didn't understand it, Rader, but thank you for your important contribution to this discussion!

Nachtwolf seems a little uncertain about whether it's
'civilization' ... or the US' current position as the only global superpower.)

Not at all; I do care about the continuation of global civilization, but more than that, I care about the survival of Western civilization, and more than that, the welfare of my own country, and more than that, the happiness and good fortune of my children. I would certainly like to see other peoples employ eugenics, and I hope that ultimately their enlightened nations would respect the life which surrounds them and end practices such as

* Inhumane experimentation on animals
* Slavery
* Religious indoctrination
* Genital mutilation

And so on. But for you to think that the way my natural interest in others is directly proportional to the degree of relatedness they share with me is "confused" says ultimately that you do not understand the evolutionary principle of kin selection, or how it applies to human sentiment, Nereid.

This is, at base, the problem which I see you having - you don't seem to recognize that humans (if not yourself) favor themselves first, then their friends and family, then their broader social group, then their nation, then race and species and genus and so forth. Deep down, since you are yourself a living being and a product of evolutionary forces, you are probably governed by similar sentiments, although you may not have thought about that, Nereid. Oh well; at least selfAdjoint gets it:

"you might have developed through evolution to PREFER a certain moral stance. Such as don't kill members of the tribe, but kill outlanders if the tribal consensus requires it."

Back in the Social Sciences sub-forum, Nachtwolf made several assertions on why he feels the US average IQ will decline at ~2/generation, and what disasters would be visited upon the US should its average national IQ decline by x. Nereid, and others, challenged Nachtwolf on these assertions

Firstly, my claim was that the genetic component to IQ is declining at a rate of approximately two points per generation; this genetic decline is only beginning to manifest itself phenotypically. This is a distinction which I'm very surprised you aren't understanding, given your obvious intelligence and your usual predisposition towards punctilious nitpicking! But more importantly, I haven't seen you "challenge" any of this - you took for granted elsewhere that the more intelligent were being out-reproduced by the less intelligent, and you have never (to my knowledge) disputed that intelligence was in any way heritable. If you are going to accept these two facts, then it should be quite obvious to you that the genetic component to intelligence is declining via simple Darwinian mechanisms which ensure that traits which are reproduced more will become more prevalent than traits which are reproduced less. These are the same mechanisms which repeatedly doubled hominid encephalization quotients throughout our evolutionary history - only now they are working in the opposite direction. If you are unconcerned by this trend, that is your own affair.


--Mark

 

[billy_boy_999]

you took for granted elsewhere that the more intelligent were being out-reproduced by the less intelligent, and you have never (to my knowledge) disputed that intelligence was in any way heritable. If you are going to accept these two facts, then it should be quite obvious to you that the genetic component to intelligence is declining via simple Darwinian mechanisms which ensure that traits which are reproduced more will become more prevalent than traits which are reproduced less

i'm sorry, i for one do not see the empirical evidence that the 'more intelligent' are being 'out-reproduced' by the less intelligent...was there posted some valid and astonishing data to that effect somewhere in the thread that i missed?

 

[Evo]

Firstly, my claim was that the genetic component to IQ is declining at a rate of approximately two points per generation; this genetic decline is only beginning to manifest itself phenotypically. This is a distinction which I'm very surprised you aren't understanding, given your obvious intelligence and your usual predisposition towards punctilious nitpicking! But more importantly, I haven't seen you "challenge" any of this - you took for granted elsewhere that the more intelligent were being out-reproduced by the less intelligent, and you have never (to my knowledge) disputed that intelligence was in any way heritable. If you are going to accept these two facts, then it should be quite obvious to you that the genetic component to intelligence is declining via simple Darwinian mechanisms which ensure that traits which are reproduced more will become more prevalent than traits which are reproduced less. These are the same mechanisms which repeatedly doubled hominid encephalization quotients throughout our evolutionary history - only now they are working in the opposite direction. If you are unconcerned by this trend, that is your own affair.


--Mark

Wrong again Nachtwolf. You have been disproved on this time after time. I'm too busy right now to list all of the studies that show you are wrong and that across the board average IQ in the western world has been continually "increasing". The information has previously been posted in the social sciences threads. I do have this one handy.

"Each year 10,000 people take the MENSA IQ test - 2,500 pass to become members. Over the last century, the UK's average IQ has risen about 3 points every decade"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/intelligence/

 

[Zero]

Wrong again Nachtwolf. You have been disproved on this time after time. I'm too busy right now to list all of the studies that show you are wrong and that across the board average IQ in the western world has been continually "increasing". The information has previously been posted in the social sciences threads. I do have this one handy.

"Each year 10,000 people take the MENSA IQ test - 2,500 pass to become members. Over the last century, the UK's average IQ has risen about 3 points every decade"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/intelligence/

Once you've decided that racism(in whatever guise) is the way to go, can you ever come back from that madness? The answer appears to be "no".

 

[Zero]

i'm sorry, i for one do not see the empirical evidence that the 'more intelligent' are being 'out-reproduced' by the less intelligent...was there posted some valid and astonishing data to that effect somewhere in the thread that i missed?

There IS no data to that effect...there are bogus studies coming out of a racist think-tank, though. The fact that those studies are universally rejected on sound scientific principles only fuels the illusions of the nonconformists who feel radical by embracing pseudoscience.

 

[Rader]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rader
People often believe that they must oppose eugenics since they oppose cloning, ethnic cleansing, abortion, or genetic manipulation. I wonder why?

Because people are stupid, and confuse their abhorrence for squares and rhombuses with a moral imperative to oppose quadrilaterals. This kind of general stupidity which saturates humanity is a big reason why I want eugenics.

Your arrogant answer has pretty well given away your intentions. No people are not stupid, they have different opinions and some have moral imperatives that say it is wrong to eliminate other human beings, for what ever reason.

Quote:
Diversity seems to be a positve aspect of evolution, since we are not extinct.

Yes, and as I've already stated, eugenics is not about the elimination of diversity, is it?

Yes it is, diversity of specified human caracteristics. It would be the beginning of global mass racism. You propose to eliminate the stupid and make everyone intellegent. Let me give you some information, to make an intellegent decision. In five generations due to the fact that the birthrate of western society is 1.1 child per couple, that society will be replaced by the same humans you wish to elimate.

Quote:
I have read the link on eugenics

Well, it's a pity that you didn't understand it, Rader, but thank you for your important contribution to this discussion!

Oh but you are most certainly wrong there, i understand your intentions. I oppose them.

 

[olde drunk]

no matter what you think, you will be you.

within the context of philosphy, you are born into the situation that best suits you spiritual goal. believing in any form of superior human beings is an immature fantasy.

peace,

ps: who wizzed in the gene pool?