Is Genetic/Racial Superiority Valid?

When addressing the title of this thread, I would say no. European or the white race got a big jump on knowledge and tecnology during the Renaissance and took it from there. But before that the Asian's held sway and let's not forget the Egyptians of yore. That is one associates genetic/racial superiority with knowledge, technology and military prowess.

 

That's true- knowledge and technology are definitely products of environmental conditioning, but can a pronounced intelligence be achieved by consistently breeding the most intelligent people with each other?

 

Who needs instinct, that's what money is for.

Are we going to have two races in the future then? Balding Morlocks who manage things well and beautiful well built Eloi, with their instinctive drive to clean pools and deliver pizzas

 

Generations of surviving cold weather in europe made whites intellectually superior due to survival of the fittest, or social darwinism, but as other races assimilate into their advanced countries it helps them to catch up in the genetic race as well.

The colder countries with large populations are generally genetically ahead such as Russia, and northern European countries like Sweden, Norway, due to its freezing climate, and the need to develop strategies to survive there such as socialism. The warmer climates depreciate in intellect because its easier to survive there, that is why Italians, Spanish, and Blacks have to play catch up.

But the reason why Americans of all races are genetically most superior in the world, is because they are capitalist which requires an advanced form of intellect developed from competition.

 

Knowledge and technology cannot be inherited. If I learn to read, my offspring will not be able to read until they're taught to. Technology is a byproduct of intelligence. Before there was technology there was intelligence. And the imagination to take an idea and kick it up a notch. Intelligence is inherited among those who were bred with someone who had it. Isolated tribes with no intersex with those outside the tribe stay stagnant, and display little imagination.

 

I think communication in the forms of language and record keeping- and the increasingly powerful ways we find to achieve these things, from cave paintings and flesh tatoos to information that can be stored and shipped in the form of light- is the reason behind civilizations exponential advancement. It's not so much the intelligence as the ability to stack known knowledge and build from it that is responsible for what you see. Many of the imperial civilizations drew many of the ideas from the lesser organized areas they conquered.

However, I think it is not really so simple as comparing the advancement of certain civilizations technologically because intellect, imagination, and startling ingenuity can be found in the poorest or most dangerous places where people have to think of and engineer the means to survive- especially when they have the most simplistic resources available to them. In a way, I guess you can say it's still the same level of intellect that is being applied to different things. We tend to see neat, proportionate, and flashy things as more advanced, so it seems more intellegent, but I think that is a superficial way of looking at it. This is why it was posible for Northern Europe to advance over Rome and Rome was able to advance over Carthage and so on. It wasn't a difference in intellect, just situation.

 

The OP is talking about eugenics, though. Our evolution is not necessarily naturally guided by intellectual prowess anymore thanks to the conditions of modern society. As joked about in the film Idiocracy, it's the idiots who are having tons of kids, not the intellects of our age.

 

Modern technology requires greater specialisation among our population. Most of us can be total technological dunces barely able to operate an appliance designed for dummies and it doesn't make any significant difference to our ability to survive. Especially in the welfare state.

Whereas, as you indicate here, it took greater ingenuity and intellect for people to thrive in the past, when conditions were much more challenging.

 

The possibility exists. But some geniuses have come from parents that were dumb as rocks. Then it may depend if you are looking at IQ's as the gauge. Then there were people that were geniuses in one particular field, but all thumbs and nitwits in almost every other endeavor. You also have book smart people who can't put to use what they learned. I do not think one can ever underrate common sense, a strong work ethic and the will to learn and apply what one learned.

Selective breeding would produce better results when applying it to physical traits I think. As for IQ or intelligence, it would be a hit and miss project. I know a couple of read smart people who produced a dense kid.

 

Can one breed a genetically superior race of humans? I suppose it is possible but not ethical.....

Besides, superiority is highly subjective.

Superior how? in which ways?

 

I cited an example earlier of a South American tribe that had no contact with people beyond their village, on Earth for thousands of years and they still living in the stoneage, exhibiting no intellect and even less imagination. Intellect tests aren't Jeopardy quizzes. Book learning may raise your knowledge but it won't raise your intellect. Two braniacs may have a slow child but the odds are on them having a bright child.

 

In the past, it was mostly the same way. The advances that pushed civilization further were created by a scattering of individuals, and these individuals were privileged enough to read and learn the teachings of those that came before them and those around them to a varying extent.

Also, most people see the past as more challenging, but I disagree. I think the present is just as challenging, it's just the the threats we face today are of a different nature than the past. Back then, they would have to worry about weather and pestiliences. Today, we still have to be mindful of such, but not to a great extent. However, we have things like foreclosures and economic storms that can wipe out thousands of jobs overnight or cause international depressions. The stresses of the present may even more intense then the past...

Welfare is fine because that's generally how tribal societies- or any society- operates when you place social integrity above individual gain. When the survival of the group is the priority, all peoples in the group learn to contribute and are valued and so most find reason to keep contributing. The little welfare we have today might be what's responsible for the prevention of a larger societal collapse. Think about it. They aren't paying people millions of dollars for nothing...

 

That's a really interesting way of looking at it. It makes me question whether intelligence is really what we think it is. We seem to believe intelligence is an across-the-board measure of a persons ability to mentally perform tasks or interpret and project on information, but what we might be seeing is not really intelligence but a sort of mental inclination in certain individuals to particular tasks.

Because of this, we couldn't breed for intelligence, in general. We could only breed particular types of humans good for particular types of tasks the same way we make particular types of machines for partiuclar types of tasks. When I think of it that way, it's not even about creating the perfect human being as much as it is the perfect tool for a particular job...

 

There are also the Sentinelese people who are basically stone age barbarians that have little intellect. They basically use stone tools.... Interestingly enough they're from an Island that is only a few miles off the mainland and they have been there for 40,000+ years and have never attempted to sail or voyage off the island... No one can really test them because they're hostile and no one knows their language...

They're an uncontacted tribe of peoples..

These people are dumb because of thousands of years of inbreeding within a small community...

 

Yes, very true. We can't breed for general superiority, we can only breed a person to benefit a particular goal or application.

 

Interesting thought, as we can see it has not actually been tried as there are no superior races.

 

I would have to wonder what the standards or prerequisites of the people quizzing the S. Africans for intelligence were... There is a big difference between intellect and knowledge. Perhaps they displayed the lack of an ability to sieze upon modern concepts- things that are easy for us because we've been gradually introduced to these things our whole lives from childhood. But for them, it would be like handing an IQ test to a caveman. The intelligence may be the same, but the ability to bridge his previous existences, experience, and knowledge to what is presented- something that would be quite bizzare and alien- might be the reason they perform poorly.

The real test would be to take their children from birth and place them in high performing schools in our societies and see how well they perform. Even then, the conditions will not be exactly ideal and the findings are still subject to individual perception or opinions, but I think it's a much better method.

 

Then you have an ant farm.

 

If no one can test them, how are they capable of really gauging intelligence other than from superificial observations?

I do not think that these things necessarily imply stupid people. Rather, it may imply that these people have been unaware or have not felt the need to move beyond their settlement. (opinion...)

 

Or because they didn't breed with someone who had the intelligent gene. Almost everyone else got a dose of it.

 

One can also be extremely intelligent but do nothing with it... What good is intelligence if you learn nothing? one cannot force an individual to learn, so even a trait such as intelligece means little to nothing....

I mean a guy with an IQ of 100 can be way smarter than a guy with an IQ of 160 if the guy with an IQ of 160 learns nothing... Of course the guy with an IQ of 160 can grasp concepts the guy with an IQ of 100 perhaps couldn't..

I suppose my point is you can give someone all the traits in the world but that doesn't mean they're going to use them, and it's common that when someone is gifted they don't use their gift to their advantage...

 

There is no superior race, but there are superior cultures. Not all cultures are equal.

 

Exactly.

Ants aren't as intelligent as they appear upon closer inspection. It's revealed that they respond to a series of social cues based mostly on scents. While relatively dumb when left to their individual selves, somehow, when placed into large groups, they are capable- as a group- of great and complex achievements. Human beings, in general, are also relatively dumb compared to the world around them. Very, very, very few people ever contribute to the inllectual progression of society, they are just workers scratching out a living in one field or another- some requiring more knowledge or specialization, but this is nothing more than muscle-memory for the brain in most situations. The actual innovators of society tend to be braod scale instances or conditions which prompt human beings to figure out a solution. The myth is that individuals come up with the solution, but in truth, they are one of many who begin to tackle these problems and have simply...or allegedly...emerged first with the solution- but they benefited from years and years of prior research both direct and indirect.

It's really odd you mentioned this. You should really take a look at the research involved in the study of ant societies. It will give you quite the perspective on the various human hives we call cities.

 

Observations alone are enouch to draw conclusions...

They've made no progress despite the fact they're regularly visited from a distance... I mean they can clearly see there are boats, and people with tools and typical human progress yet they appear baffled...

There are plenty of videos and papers on them - check them out for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

 

Well...the point in making them would be that they always have the greater potential. Even though some may be lazy, you're bound to profit more from having a group of intellectual high performers with a few derelicts than you would from a group of average performers who may be equally inclined to have layabouts among them.