EUGENICS R GOOD: TRUE or FALSE ??

I lost a bit of ground but not a lot.

I don't agree with you as a favour effemm. There's no need to thank me.

We still haven't decided which eugenics we are talking about. The natural,evolved one or the scientific one organised by scientists for the benefit of mankind.

Explain the "natural evolved eugenics"?

Is that like "virgin naugahyde"?

A bit.

So far as I can remember, that one was not among
the movies that I deemed a waste, those decades ago.
I was reasonably satisfied, but I don 't believe that I
beheld any significant epiphanies in that movie.

Maybe U did.





David

Define "genetic flaw". Sickle Cell anemia, for example, comes from reinforcing a genetic trait that improves survival in arid regions. One copy of the gene is beneficial, while two copies are detrimental.


Pre-natal, peri-natal and childhood nutrition, and available medical care is more important to this than genetics.


Good luck on the ESP. All of the rest of this is more dependent on pre-natal, peri-natal, and childhood nutrition along with nurturing parenting.

One of the best things one can do to boost I.Q. is to teach a child to walk as soon as possible. Exposure to ideas, speech, etc. boost brain development.

Breastfeeding is also associated with higher I.Q.s. Every month of breastfeeding appears to improve I.Q. by one point.


That can be trained, although a trait called "perceptual speed" can affect it. I submit that fluency is more important than speed, however.


Why would you saddle your child with anti-survival characteristics? Blond hair is only desirable because it turns brown as the child ages; it is an indicator of youth. Photophobia is associated with blue eyes.


Why? Exceptionally attractive people don't seem to be any happier than the rest of us.


Why? And how is this different from "high I.Q."?


Good to know that your obsessions are always with you, Bubba.





A couple of other issues:

1. Extremely high I.Q. (greater than 180 or so) is associated with social problems. Perhaps this would not be a problem in a society of geniuses.
2. Regression to the mean: Take two geniuses and breed them. The I.Q. of the child is likely to be closer to average than the parents.
3. I'm more concerned about the geniuses in the general population that our society is missing out on. Take all this money you'd spend on Eugenics and spend it on education, and you'll get a better return on your investment.

I'll also add that the pre-natal testing can detect a lot of genetic and developmental abnormalities.

If I were going to reproduce,
I 'd fully exploit the benefits of genetics, so far as is now possible.
Presumably, as time passes, new strategies and technologies will evolve
for improving life on a genetic basis.

In addition to this, your suggestions shoud be explored,
to derive their fullest benefit, tho not necessarily as a substitute for genetic improvements.

I have assumed that good looking people are happier
than the opposite. I have never liked my face.
If I had a son, I 'd want him to look better.
I have not accumulated evidence on this point.
As I write this, I now remember some tests shown on TV
wherein good looking people were treated better
than those who were not.

I remember giving cash to good looking chics swinging Silver Bells
at Christmastime, and tipping good looking waitresses who were not MY
waitresses; give her a $100.00 bill "for being the most beautiful chic
around here."

I am under the impression that plenty of $$ is ALREADY being spent
on education; WHAT, in particular, do u wish to spend this education $$ ON ??

BUBBA ??

I'd eliminate No Child Gets Ahead (er... No Child Left Behind).

me too

.

If you're really interested in this - why don't you just move a few miles up I95 to Connecticut?
What the hell are you doing living in Queens, NYC, of all places?

What 's the connection to Connecticut ? (no pun intended)





David

Well, since you're setting somewhat high and WASP(y) standards here - Connecticut seems to attract a lot of those sorts of people (no offense to any Connecticcuttians - I have a brother, a sister-in-law, and three nephews who live in Connecticut)- they all have brown eyes and dark hair though- except my sister-in-law- you'd like her- she has blonde hair and green eyes - not blue, but I bet alot of their neighbors have blonde hair and blue eyes.

They live in this idyllic little town within commuting distance of NYC - it always reminds me of those episodes of I Love Lucy when Lucy and Ricky go up to their country house in Connecticut- and they invite Fred and Ethel along for added interest, because it's just so boring and homogenized up there without them. And Ricky seems to stick out like a sore thumb - but so does Lucy really - she doesn't really fit in up there either. You know when you think of it 'I Love Lucy' was a pretty groundbreaking show for its time.

Because if you work in New York and don't want to live in the city, you can either live in Connecticut, New Jersey, or on Long Island for the most part and I think New Jersey and Long Island (like Levittown and those places) have more of the reputation of not setting such high and WASP(ish) standards. They both offer much more local color and what you might think of as the riff-raff (just going by your description of who's acceptable as the best possible or most quality sort of person).
I personally like that sort of variety but as I said, it sounds like you might prefer Connecticut.

But you know David - you'd be doing away with about 9/10 of the world's population with this standard (and that' only based on your preference for blonde hair and blue eyes- when you add the whole ESP thing into it - WHOA - although I'd personally make that cut - I really do think I have a little bit of ESP - seriously).

But to answer your question more directly- I think EUGENICS R BAD. I would miss all the humanly unimaginable and rather miraculous variation I see around me, but could never have standardized or invented. Yeah, I would miss that.

And I think Stepford (you know of the Stepford Wives) was in Connecticut too.

I think that is a key point - can we really imagine what an evolved human looks like? I've seen the argument in several books - what would an ape imagine as an improved version of itself? I doubt it would be a human. Likewise, what we imagine as an improvement might not even be close to what would evolve naturally. Another fiction novel recommendation, this one based on human evolution: Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear.

We all would Rebecca. But you rather slip by the main point I'm afraid. The miraculous variation comes at the cost of other variations which are not very nice.

You are being sweet again rather than realistic. You might think you are only arguing for the nice variations but in actual fact you are necessarily arguing for the not nice ones as well.

Yeah, I thought about that on my walk - but isn't that what gene therapy is designed to take care of? I think we're getting to the point that we can address some of those problems without taking the eugenics route, can't we?

And couples do have genetic counseling to screen for chromosomal and genetic anomalies before a pregnancy proceeds. I remember when I was pregnant at my first appointment, my obstetrician asked me about my family history and I told them that I did have a brother with learning disabilities - but it was not genetic- it was due to lack of oxygen during his birth, which I could see relieved the geneticist, but really, you know, we all have something lurking somewhere in our lineage and there are no sure things in life and sometimes the most wonderful are the least understood and expected...
(how's that for sweetness and light?)

Except I really do mean it. Having known my brother as he was, I can't imagine loving him more if he'd been 'perfect' (he did have sort of blonde hair though David- dirty-blonde we called it).

Of course I also understand that he may rather have been 'perfect' and it was probably easier for me to love his imperfections than maybe it was for him to feel imperfect...it's a very complex subject and blonde hair and blue eyes are just the tip of the iceberg... I don't have any answers, except I think when we fool with nature it ends up being pretty dicey and usually not much better for the majority.

It would be pretty good actually if it wasn't for the euphemism "before a pregnancy proceeds" to avoid you saying chopping the mite from inside its Mom with sharp tools.

I'm just telling David what happens 'before a pregnancy proceeds'. That's all - I wasn't trying to avoid saying anything else one way or the other. Not everyone who gets a bad genetic forecast does or would abort.

Do you really think I don't know that Rebecca?

Your phrase implied abortion. And it's dangerous territory in eugenics if perfections are sought.

If I were able to geneticly re-engineer myself ex post facto
I 'd be very interested in configuring myself to those criteria.
If I were going to reproduce (with the agreement of my wife)
I 'd try to arrange the best genetic advantages for him,
along the indicated criteria, in addition to any other advantages
that were possible; e.g., I 'd give him psychokinesis, in addition to ESP.

I 'd wish never to be confronted by a question from him of:
"Y did u fail to make me BETTER? U coud have included this
or that in my genetic heritage."

I don 't know whether I shoud take the trouble to explore
Conn., with a vu toward migration. I am accustomed to NY.

I have given some thought to moving to Manhattan.

Qua: ". . . you'd be doing away with about 9/10 of the world's
population with this standard . . ." if I coud do so, then presumably
others who chose to improve themselves woud do so.





David