Is Genetic/Racial Superiority Valid?

Well...

It just recently dawned on me, after thinking about dogs, that all life can be bred to advance certain traits. Because of this, wouldn't it be possibly to bred an advanced human being? That's really the core of my argument. If you take the most brilliant and intellectually inclined and you keep breeding them, or you have a society more inclined to mental and intellectual pursuits and whose life is increasingly centered around such things, wouldn't it be fair to guess that you would breed intellectually superior people down the line?

There is one major problem with this, however, and that is that in the end, what I suggested is technically not Genetic/Racial superiority, but more like conditioning or engineering in that the ability to advance a particular human trait like intelligence or strength is not exclusive to a particular race. Still, if the effort was continuously emphasized on a particular part of humanity while others lacked in this effort for whatever reason, wouldn't you effectively be creating a genetically superior breed?

 

We humans are doing this right now, and have been since we came to be.....it is generally referred to as Evolution.

Survival of the Fittest does not require big teeth.

 

You're stepping into quicksand on this one, and in various ways.
1. Is it even ethical or moral to "breed" human beings like dogs, or like wheat? I think not.
2. If someone attempted to breed humans for (say) intelligence, what would the side effects be? Maybe we might also get more autism, more sociopaths, more suicide, more crime. Is that really "superior"?

 

Typically to breed a species that species needs to have a short age of sexual maturity, because it usually takes several generations to breed for a specific trait. Breeding humans would not quite be the same thing as breeding dogs or roses. For one thing, for this to practically work would, at the very least, likely require the humans to bred at the age of 12-14, otherwise it would take a very long time to see any results.

This is likely one of the reasons dogs were so easy to domesticate, because they can be bred after only 9 months from the time they are born.

 

Racial superiority is task dependent.​

 

What does that mean?

 

all races are superior in some way, that's why they exist.

 

Think it through. There may be some racial superiority in that ability.
As opposed to racial superiority and the task of basketball, or opera singing.

 

I don't think basketball is something that a particular race is "better" at. For instance, the reason Chinese people usually rank so high in education is not because they are genetically or racially more intelligent, it's because their culture and society places a strong influence on schooling. Chinese students have a rigorous curriculum, very competitive, longer school years, are pressured by parents, etc. It's social conditioning meaning that if the same thing were done by another group of human beings over a period of time, a rise in educational performance would likely result.

 

you need to watch more basketball!

What is your measurement of superiority?
Opera singers?
Basketball players?
Education landmarks?
Ability to survive in the wild?

 

Any trait. The question is can humans be bred to be superior at some thing. Intelligence, strength, etc...

 

Yes, the Nazis were doing something like this, so its not a new idea.

 

Which kinds of brings the ugliness of Eugenics to mind- only Eugenics may have been centered on the belief that existing differences between the races were genetic rather than superficial conditioning and environmental.

 

Maybe no one will bring this up for fear of being branded a racist, but its the truth. Slaves before the 1700s and later in the USA were selectively bred, not scientifically but the slave holders bred for size, strength, and other traits. 'Recently', Jimmy the Greek, one of the most prominent sport anchors of the day who worked for CBS (I think) was one of the first 'race casualties', being fired for saying on the air that he thought the was the reason blacks seems to have a slight edge in certain sports was because of selective breeding in the days that slavery was legal. I don't think the Greek was being malicious and don't know why that is so awfully racist unless he said it in a villainous etc way. But maybe it was embarrassing to some, heck if my race was said to be superior because we were bred to be better it might be a compliment, especially if it was true.

Anyway selective breeding/eugenics is immoral and not ethical in my opinion.
There's is too much temptation to do truly nasty things. I don't think our species has evolved enough 'emotionally' to be responsible for creating a even 'superior race' of human without risking serious consequence because of our ignorance. Of course we might be able to create a race of Gandhi's or Jesus's with the intellect of ten Einsteins. Sadly history has shown the opposite would likely be true, at least when the overall concept is considered. The Nazis were big fans of all the above, and attempted things that Dr. Moreau might have considered taboo. After thousands of hideous experiments their reward was to be charged with against humanity and worse. I say no, imo humans aren't ready to do God stuff just yet.

reva

 

Evasive.
Name a trait.
If intelligence, what measure? IQ tests? Achievement in society.
Give me a trait and a unit of measurement and I will give you the Superior Race!

 

People practice Eugenics every time they pick someone to marry. But no one likes to talk about that.

 

Smell.

 

How'd you come up with that?

I imagined people would marry for a variety of reasons- wealth, security, loneliness, stress, compatability.... It seems like advancing the human race, or creating a more perfect human offspring seems like the least likely reason, unless I'm not seeing something. Do they really?

 

That's easy.
Everyone knows white people smell the worst!

 

It'll happen, assuming people are around long enough. It's just a question of which groups turn their noses up at it and end up in the dustpan of history, and which ones embrace technology, becomes more powerful, and enforce a new world order - whether dystopian or utopian. Doubt it'll happen simply by genetic modification though. We'll probably hybridize with technology as well.

Not sure if it's really happening in the past few generations though. Evolution can only occur when advantageous genetic traits lead to a greater likelihood of producing offspring that produce offspring and so on. We don't have selective pressure from differential survival of offspring in industrialized countries, and people don't reproduce because they were more fit in any way besides basic fecundity... Unless you count being uneducated about birth control, or having some crazy religion that tells you to have lots of babies... but you wouldn't - because those aren't genes.

Ad hominem fallacy. The Nazis were wrong, but that doesn't make artificial selection wrong. Forced sterilization was the least of their crimes.

 

I doubt most people actually pick their mates for the purpose of determining a specific quality of their progeny.

 

Of course we do, the thing is, it's not necessarily a conscious choice.

 

I think it's a lot less working off a checklist of specific traits and more traits that we're attracted to. Evolution works 24/7. You don't have to be consciously aware of why you're more attracted to person A more than person B.

 

Breeding and evolution are two different things...somewhat. Breeding is the conscious effort to bring about a certain outcome while evolution is something that is more passive- or at least a function of the genetic level of biological existence.

 

the movie Ascension was kinda about this... sadly it got canceled after only 6 shows