So I'm looking at my dog (Golden Retriever), and I'm thinking, if all people were like my dog, they would be caring, intelligent, good-looking, friendly, hard-working, energetic, athletic, tall, and basically...perfect. Then I think to myself, "why not?" Why can't we be perfect as well? We breed dogs based on their characteristics and eventually end up with the desired goal. Now hear me out. I'm sure many of you are thinking, "good idea, just like Hitler... ", but that's not what I'm thinking. Obviously moderation is the key. Problem: Developed countries have problems with the low reproductive rates of the "upper class". People such as doctors, lawyers, businessmen are very busy and on average have less children. On the flip side, those who marry right out of high school and work at a "lesser" job generally have more kids. This, to me, sounds counter-intuitive. The more accomplished persons are passing less of their genetic info to future generations than those with less accomplishments (notice I'm trying to be PC but failing ). System: Here's a system that might nudge human genetics in the direction of "betterment" Start off by having each person having a base reproduction rate of .5 . Thus, when a couple comes together, they have a reproduction rate of 1 offspring (.5 + .5). People's reproduction rate will be increased based on their intelligence, looks, physical structure, etc. If you and your spouse are an average couple, you will probably have a rate of 1. So that's 2 children per parents (basically replacing the parents). If your partner is very smart and you are athletically gifted, maybe you two will have a rate of 3 or 4 offsprings. If you are a felon your rate drops to 0, even if your partner is a 1 or 2 you can never reproduce. Basically, the better you are physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. means you can reproduce more. Obviously the system is not complete, the numbers are just estimates, and it will never happen. That is not the point. The point is advancement of the gene pool. Dangerous? yes. But still intriguing. NOTE: I know this will never occur. I do not advocate this "system" for use in any country. It's just a thought that occured to me and I would like some insights and thoughts. Please do not say something stupid like, "no" or "that's evil".
"CHICAGO - In a report with dire implications for the intellectual future of America, a University of Chicago study revealed Monday that the nation's uneducated are breeding twice as soon and twice as often as those with university diplomas. "The average member of the American underclass spawns at age 15, compared to age 30 for the average college-educated professional," study leader Kenneth Stalls said. 'America's intellectual elite, as a result, is badly losing the genetic marathon, with two generations of dullards born for every one generation of cultured literates.' Added Stalls: 'At this rate, by the year 2100 there will be five smart people on Earth, swallowed whole by more than 12 billion mouth-breathers incapable of understanding the binary exponentiation that swamped the Earth with their like.' High-school dropout Mandi Drucker, 16, said of the findings, 'All I know is, we're in love.'" -The Onion
Ask yourself what "perfect" and "progress" is and you'll get a different answer than everybody else. Well, you could breed a Hitler type to answer all the hard questions. But what would we need you for?
For Gattaca, people were typecasted based on their DNA, that is a different subject than semi-selective breeding. Also in Gattaca, the society also was very efficient and peaceful, so it didn't claim that having better genetics was a bad thing. The theme of Gattaca was that a person should reach for the stars and not let something hold you back. In the case of Gattaca, the person was born naturally and was not suppose to be able to able to live for a long time because of poor genetics and become an astronaut. But, again, that's typecasting based on genetics, not semi-selective breeding. Because I'm perfect? Anyways, you are trying to make it personal when I'm just trying to have a discussion. I'm not trying to create a homogenous group of people. Diversity is a benefit to mankind. Just nudge the genetics toward a smarter, stronger progeny. As expected, there are many knee-jerk reactions to my post. But, mind you, that they type of selection I'm talking about has already been going on for billions of years. As the faster fox catches his prey, his genetics will be passed down. With welfare and health care, we don't exactly have the same selection pressures. Anyways, it's just a thought, keep your snide comments to yourself. What I'm looking for are just the pros vs. cons and perhaps some moral vs. immoral discussion.
This is a fundimental misunderstanding of dog behavior. Whether he really likes you or not you'll never know, because he views you as the alpha male. Dogs with non-dominance related issues (i.e. they don't believe themselves alpha males) will wag their tale and be friendly and caring while their masters around and pee on the rug while they are away. Also, you ignore the Nurture half of the Nature-Nurture debate and the ever prevelant truth of regression to the mean, and many of the criteria upon which you would rate people is very subjective. Who gets to decide the subjective "good"? Finally, racial genetic sculpting on such a scale is a potential engineering nightmare. What happens if you breed people who are calm in a conflict and end up with a species who never gets upset enough to do anything but sit infront of the TV? Ever hear of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse? Sometimes the wisdom lies in understanding that a system is so complex that attempting to alter it is unpredictable and therefore dangerous.
Nice, nice. Haha. Let's talk about dogs. True, do dogs really like humans? Well, I think my dog likes me just because I give her food. But how about humans and emotions? What is love? How do you love a person? I would define love as "the way the other person makes you feel". Very selfish, indeed. Perhaps, you feel secure and safe when you are with that person. Perhaps the person you are with is very good looking and you like that. Maybe the person you love is nice to you. Maybe the person is a b**** to you but you have attached feelings based on experiences such that you still love them. So really, the question is how selfish are we? Friendly people get satisfaction out of being friendly. Would you donate money and then feel bad about it? No, you get satisfaction in your mind. What does being friendly and caring really mean except that it is a behavior that is associated with certain emotions depending on different personalities. Yes, that's definitely a good point, but lucky for me, we are discussing it theoretically, not in application. So like a quantum physics professor, I can wave my magic wand and say, "something happens and we can rate qualities objectively". True, but again, I have my magic wand. Plus, I'm not creating homogenous superhumans, which some people think I am. I am just having certain people breed more. Stupid people will still be able to have kids, just not as many as smart people. So, genetic diversity remains. There will be aggressive people and calm people and tall people and short people.
NURTURE over NATURE Genetic Make up has little to do with success Upbringing and Circumstances predict success far more Look at GW Bush . . .is IMO is VASTLY less intelligent than his father however he accomplished a equal position longer than his father did because his father put him in the position too .. moreso than his own inate ability Rocket River
There wouldn't be any need for me either... If you've ever read A Brave New World, you might remember the social pyramid with the lowest classes as the majority while the most intelligent and skilled classes as the minority. There was no way an Alpha lower himself to do menial labor. All were genetically predispositioned to do their work. They were diverse in the terms you've given. Maybe it runs that way right now. Rich people are focused more on education and career advancement. Poor people could be saddled from debt, failure, or inadequate income from the size of their families. If one out of five poor kids make it rich. It still doesn't increase the odds. It maintains it. You're talking about dogs... 5,000 years ago, they were bred as hunters/protectors. Now, many are bred for show and companionship. Throw the two in the wild, and which one has the higher chances of survival? Put the two in the streets and which one will be most likely be caught and put asleep? Bill Gates has smarts but not strength. Arnold Schwarzeneger has strength but not smarts. If you want to make being with both traits, that is enough for a superhuman class. But what about other traits? Why does strength and smarts deserve the most attention? Machines make it so even the puniest guy can wreck buildings. Assembly lines and standardized parts have decreased the need for skilled labor (the kind that would encourage more rich people to procreate). Computers have saved millions of work hours, and have made some mathematical skills obselete. So what is this progress you want to rush toward? Is it definite and certain?
Here are my two cents... 1. Intelligence is arbitrary. Its primarily driven by socio-economic advantages. Bill Gates isn't inherently smarter than say a homeless person on the street. He just was priveleged to get access to good education and the resources necessary to succeed. Hell near my old dorm in college there was a guy who would just sit around and read constantly. I don't know what he did for a living but the guy could be classified as a genius. He knew virtually everything on every topic but he never went to school. I'd argue he's probably smarter than bill gates, he just doesn't have the resources to advance himself and successfully utilize his knowledge. 2. Eugenics programs are a subtle way of reinforcing classism and racism. Using your criteria while we don't want to admit it, the fact is the better genetically advantaged people would probably be white. Other minority groups tend to be more socially disenfranchised and thus under your criteria, "less intelligent." Second, those who are denied the ability to reproduce would probably be pretty pissed. You are functionally creating an underclass of society that is shoved aside because of their lack of physique and intelligence. Also, this attitude of intelligent and physical superioity would easily build resentment and would probably lead to a less stable society. Go watch GATTACA and see what the world would look like after implementation of your eugenics plan.
I'm curious how you would enforce your quotas? WHat if you had a 'high' rate, but then became a felon? Do we give away your offspring? ---hmmm the dog analogy might be closer than you think.... You realize, of course, your system would mean a whole lot more Paris Hiltons and her ilk...
Actually in Japan, parents who qualify as "elite" for certain reasons are encouraged to have more children through tax benefits. Honestly, I don't see any harm in this. Now if you are against this type of program, ask yourself why you don't have a problem with America's programs where the poor are encouraged to have more children through tax benefits. There are obviously some smart people who just happen to be poor, but I would say that the majority of people who are poor are poor because of poor decision-making. Selective breeding creates many problems, as can be seen by health problems in pure-bred dogs and the Royal family. However, IF you think that creating a smarter, on average human race is a worthwhile goal, it could probably be achieved by giving more successful Americans incentives to have more children. There's something else to think about however: our current system was created by the elite of the country. Does anyone else think that they might like a situation where they create a more gullible and perhaps tractable large population base? As far as the regression to the mean argument, on average the child of a Yao Ming and say a 6'7 woman will not be as tall as them. However, the child would be very likely to be taller than the child of a 5'1 woman and a 5'2 man.
I could deal with that - the more attractive women available, the better looking options I would get.
Good post. I have not read a Brave New World, but I from what you describe, I can say that my system has no such pyramid. My "system" is not a socioeconomical division of labor, but just a breeding hierachry. Socioeconomic positions will still be based on meritocracy and "inheritance". If a person has all the characteristics of a great leader, he/she will be more likely to become a leader. However, even if a person has the characteristics of a great leader, if he has no motivation or skill, he is unlikely to become a leader. Also, though rich people have an advantage, they won't gain a huge jump in their reproductive rate, rather it'd be a small increase. I wouldn't want 1000 Paris Hiltons or Donald Trumps. However, it does bring up a good point. Rich people have the financial means to take care of their children (if they choose to). How many times do we see poor parents have too many kids to support and go on welfare? It's definitely creating a large class of undereducated children who are far more likely to commit crimes, etc. If those same parents only had a couple kids, they can probably take care of them more and provide more for the few kids they have. Physical and Mental strengths are definitely a bonus for any population. How to quantify them is not the point, since obviously, it will not occur, and this is a philosophical discussion. The strongest economies in the world are tied to the high level of education their workforce has. Obviously, highly skilled workers increase productivity. Mathematical skill is tied to intelligence, and intelligence is tied to development and progress. What is progress, if not the cars we drive, the computers we use, the science that is being discovered? Even the political structure we use is based on intelligence. Democracy doesn't work without the population having a certain level of intelligence to distinguish between good and bad candidates. And with the guy in the White House today, are you telling me you wouldn't want the population to be a little smarter? And no, progress wouldn't be definite and certain.
