Comments on: Eugenics and You

By: ronin

ronin — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:05:31 +0000

In all the centuries since humans have been breeding canines from wolves have we once created an overall life form superior in all aspects to said wolf? No, but we have created specialized life forms that fit into unique sub sections, and artificial classifications. Therefore selectively breeding human beings will create sub humans who will be subservient to the “superior” humans. Let nature take its course imbeciles! A researcher trying to find a cure for Muscular Dystrophy came across a startling revelation. Human beings have a genetic deficiency compared to our ape cousins in growing jaw muscles. Why is this important? Because it was the catalyst to support brain growth. The skull is genetic prime real-estate. You either invest in jaw muscle, or have a weaker jaw, but a larger expansion for brain capacity. We start messing with human genetics or think we know better as regards to selective breeding what are we going to miss out on or plain discount as an “undesirable” trait. In conclusion eugenicist talk is self destructive no matter how you look at it.

By: Sicklet

Sicklet — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:34:06 +0000

I stick to the phrase “nobody’s perfect.” We bump into big issues when we try to purebreed dogs. When we keep breeding for specific traits, like good hips, we end up bringing out unwanted ones, like tendency to bloat. When we breed for a good build build we get a cruddy personality. What makes us think we’re going to do better on ourselves? We’re going to have ultra hot idiots and very sickly geniuses.. wait. Never mind.

Anyways have pleeenty of orphans, hobos, and traffic jams as it is with everyone from the age of 10 to 50 popping out babies and deciding it was a bad plan after the fact. Eugenics is kind of silly to worry about when overpopulation is much more glaring.

Awesome article.

By: Mirage_GSM

Mirage_GSM — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:42:42 +0000

[quote]One major problem with “positive” eugenics can be summed up in a simple question: What makes one “better” than another, and who decides that?[/quote]
Several people have used these phrases correctly in their comments, but I believe nobody has yet explained them.
“Positive” and “negative” eugenics has nothing to do with an evaluation of moral standards or one being better than the other.
Posivitve eugenics simply means encouraging the reproduction of people with desirable traits, while negative eugenics is discouraging the reproduction of people with undesirable traits.

[quote]…just like the Irish were bred to hold their liquor! [/quote]
That’s not genetics – just lifelong training ;-)

By: Mr Studworthy

Mr Studworthy — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:33:04 +0000

Brilliant article. I recently read an article from England that discussed the phenomenon of the ‘unemployed coal miners’. These are families from Manchester and other areas that live on welfare (dole) as they are unemployed coal miners. Thing is it was actually their great grandfathers who lost their jobs when the unions went on strike at the turn of the century. Their sons never worked but ’signed on’ for the dole, and every generation since, all stating that they are unemployed coal miners. Perhaps cut of their welfare rather than their jewels may be an answer to this. Either way it does smack of regression / de-evolution. As politically incorrect as it may be, there is probably some truth to the propositions put forward by the pundits of eugenics. FWIW

By: bizso

bizso — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:09:29 +0000

#186-187
Is this for real?

By: bizso

bizso — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:33 +0000

Hi, I’m from Europe, not UK.
[quote]why should mothers who are obviously never going to produce worthwhile (note:- worthwhile, not necessarily super-intelligent!) offspring[/quote]
According to behavioural psychology, a child’s future life is considerbly shaped by the enviroment he is brought up in. Thus, you can’t presume that his fate is entirely predetermined by his genes. He might even accomplish great things provided that he receives the right inputs throughout his life.
Bottom line is this subject is far from black and white. DNA as well as society have much influence on one’s life. It’s not 100% this or 100% that…
great site, btw!

By: Anthropositor

Anthropositor — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:50:05 +0000

If we look at the genius protagonist in the popular medical melodrama House, M.D., clearly the character is brilliant, observant, instinctive, and a manipulative “sociopath”. It is also clear that he has many deficits in his emotional make-up,but still manages to be an appealing character. Funny what we are drawn to.. Although I haven’t seen any episodes that gave any insight into his childhood, I doubt that his real troubles began with his leg injury and his addiction to pain killers.

Seems to me that, just as there are some people woth an extra bunch of taste buds, some have an excess of other sensory receivers. That may have something to do with the tendency to just shut some of them off. Not just the pain in the leg.

But the whole sociopath thing, that’s pretty much in the eye of the beholder. Even though he often makes a great many mistakes, always with a logical rationale. often injuring and occasionally killing the patient. On the surface, he seems pretty able to adjust to it all… with the pills.

“All right you kids, House is over, time for bed.”

By: Anthropositor

Anthropositor — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:19:29 +0000

I would also have some concern for average, or even singularly bright parents who by chance have some kids of unusual smarts. Sibling stuff. Mood stuff. Autonomy stuff. Volatility stuff.

Where geniuses probably fall most particularly short in their talents is in these human dynamics. Whether the genius is a parent or a child, he often feels misunderstood and isolated, often feeling misanthropic or alienated as a result. This does not make for the most ideal relationships, particularly when there are two or more geniuses in the same family.