Originally Posted by Humphrind

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate. but does that mean that we need to step in and help? his is not an issue with cows, we keep the best and most fertile cows to do all the breeding.

Can the cow strategy be applied to the fish in any way?
BTW - :P

Originally Posted by UncleBuddy

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

Originally Posted by Humphrind

Well, not quite. It is true that our governement promotes lower class people to have more children, and higher class people have access to more methods of birth control when desired. But, I don't think this adds up to mean that the US or any country is egulfed in reverse selective breeding.

Originally Posted by Humphrind

Darwin gone wrong. The best don't live longest, the worst are the ones that survive to repopulate. but does that mean that we need to step in and help? his is not an issue with cows, we keep the best and most fertile cows to do all the breeding.

Can the cow strategy be applied to the fish in any way?



BTW - :P

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Define "best."

Sounds to me like it's exactly what Darwin said. The best traits of surviving (i.e. Not being delicious or full of meats) are the traits being passed on.

-'rilla

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

Do you see why?

Originally Posted by Humphrind

I see why, but my point is the ideal fish for survival is also the ideal fish for eating

Originally Posted by UncleBuddy

It's true of our species as well. Our best and brightest go forth to improve the world, maybe spawn a child or two...while trailer trash continue to shoot out puppys like howitzers.

Another bright and happy moment brought to you by UB!

Originally Posted by TylerK

This is social, not biological, and therefore is not relevant to Darwin's theory. Furthermore, suggesting that this idea is valid is morally reprehensible. Do you see why?

Originally Posted by sed

Somebody has had to have done a study to see which socio-economic group the highest number of offspring comes from. Don't go making generalizations without some support. Reprehensible, maybe, but possibly true.
- sed

Originally Posted by TylerK

Yes, it's called "eugenics," and not only is it misguided and despicable, it's incorrect.

Originally Posted by sed

Wow, that a bit off the wall... I was thinking more along the lines of my personal observations, being in an academic settings, where it seems that the majority of people I deal with have between 0-2 children, very few have a larger number. The other end of the spectrum I have no idea of... which is why I wanted to see a study.

- sed

Originally Posted by TylerK

The PREMISE that academic or financial success is genetic is the issue here.

Originally Posted by TylerK

I have no doubt that census information might reveal that lower-income families have, on average, more children. How is that relevant?

Originally Posted by TylerK

I'm not arguing that we don't have a social problem. I'm arguing that we don't have a biological problem, and it shouldn't come up in a discussion of evolution.

Originally Posted by TylerK

This is social, not biological, and therefore is not relevant to Darwin's theory. Furthermore, suggesting that this idea is valid is morally reprehensible. Do you see why?

Originally Posted by UncleBuddy

Can't say I do. We, as a species, have a particular soft spot for protecting the weak among our own. No other species is caple of this, as a result our species continues to populate with those who are less intelligent, less strong and less productive.

I think you are making the common mistake to not include the social and intellectual aspects of our species in any discussion of Darwinism. Our intellect and higher intelligence is what we evolved to.

Originally Posted by TylerK

Thread rapidly approaching Godwin's Law...

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

But I think we can all agree that the commericalization of Chirstmas is a mixed blessing at best.

(Please get my Simpsons reference)

-'rilla

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

But I think we can all agree that the commericalization of Chirstmas is a mixed blessing at best.

(Please get my Simpsons reference)

-'rilla

Originally Posted by UncleBuddy

What you talkin 'bout, everyone?

Originally Posted by TylerK

Thread rapidly approaching Godwin's Law...

Originally Posted by Tonsilitis

Really long post... Lotsa big words... I'm know my stuff...

Originally Posted by Tonsilitis

I think Tyler is right that this position approaches that of the early 20th century Eugenicists -- the notion that there is a sense in which socio-economic distinctions are somehow genetically preordained can't help but give on to the notion that scientific social engineering is possible. That is, if (having completed the genome project, etc.) certain genetic qualities are reliably predictable, and if certain genetic qualities are socially undesirable, it follows that ambitous social engineers ought to be able to eradicate the undesirable genetic qualities from the population.
This was, of course, the foundational theory of the Eugenics movement, but it contains a fallacy with important implications for the underlying argument.
Assuming for the moment that something like intelligence is both quantifiable and genetically determined, then a Eugenicist could control for low intelligence by altering the genetic makeup of human embryos. In effect, then, the ambitous Eugenicist could eliminate social distinctions predicated on intelligence. This would be good for society right? Otherwise, why do it? The problem is, it would be disasterous for society, and this is what all schools of thought that embrace the idea of top-down social engineering fail to appreciate.
Take, for example, college admissions. If there were no (meaningful) disparities in standardized test scores or high school GPAs, how would any college differentiate between applicants? On one hand, you might say, what a utopia this would be. Everyone could go to Harvard and Harvard Law School. But they couldn't, because Harvard's not big enough for everyone to go -- so what's the solution? Distinctions between applicants would have to be made on bases other than intelligence or previous performance. While it might be nice to think that eliminating differences would forever level the playing field, the practical effect would likely be to roll back every advancement that has been made to date toward establishing a pure meritocracy in this country. If distinctions on the basis of merit no longer exist, and if distinctions must nevertheless be made as a matter of practical necessity, then it's inevitable that distinctions will be made on less savory characteristics such as race, socio-economic background, gender, national origin, and so forth. Not too troubling for a facist regime, but for a society that thinks merit is the only truly neutral yardstick by which people can be fairly measured, the elimination of merit as a selection criteria threatens to unravel the social fabric. I'll leave it to you guys to think about the other areas of society in which the success of Eugenics would be more devastating.
The point is that even if there is some biological or genetic predetermination of intelligence, or some other socially relevant identity characteristic, and even if we could reliably manipulate that characteristic scientifically, it is incorrect to conclude, as Eugenics does, that we OUGHT to undertake that manipulation.

Ok, I think this was a weird first post, but I couldn't help myself. I think this forum is great, I've been reading it for months now, and I wanted to jump in. So, hello and thanks for all the great discussion.

Originally Posted by gabe

this thread was meant as a very dumb joke, but an intellectual conversation grew from it...who da thunk it?