Do you support eugenics?

Eugenics is not just about intelligence. We can eliminate many genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis.

 

I believe that most if not all genetic disorders are part of the Evolutionary process, just like homosexuality.

We cannot do away with these phenomemon, through selective sterilization or euthenasia.

 

Not overly bothered by it, and I realize that it is a two-way street.

 

Every one of those things applied to me, and I still managed to escape with an IQ over 85, for god's sake. However, I do understand the way a negative environment can influence these things, but many of these environmental inputs are CAUSED by the defective parents. It only takes a few generations to clean house. Eventually, you aren't dealing with all of those issues anymore.

By the way, it is not a policy I would support without other things to go along with it. I believe in helping people and leveling the playing field as much as anything else. Contrary to what you might think, I would like to build a society that doesn't just work for those with great parents, but there are other things that have to be done as well. With our current policies, we are literally incentivizing the very things you are railing against. The bad environments and bad genetics are feeding off one another, and both have to be addressed in order to move forward.

I would like free childcare and college for those who aren't retarded. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to have social safety nets for those who will perpetually be a net drain. You take care of them until their genes die out. I'm not advocating murder or anything of the sort.

 

You are 15 points above an intellectual disability (retarded is no longer used). Maybe we set the bar at 100 which actually is average for the US. You don't make the grade.

 

Yes we can. We could do away with cystic fibrosis in one generation.

 

Can you read? I didn't say my IQ was 85. In fact, I said my full-scale score was 127, which includes both verbal and nonverbal reasoning ability.

100 is too high. Birth rates would plummet too much and you'd end up with too much instability, not to mention the fact that people can function between 85-100. The Marines, for example, will accept an 85 for the easiest positions (jobs that are the least cognitively demanding).

 

Probably why most Black Marines are cooks and truck drivers.

 

Well, I've know high IQ people that didn't need to breed. They were miserable lazy entitled folks, who thought everybody else should bow down to them because they had a high IQ. IQ is simply what IQ tests measure. There isn't a universal IQ test that can accurately test everybody.

- - - Updated - - -

The right to breed is among the most natural rights out there. To deny it is to deny the basic evolutionary purpose to life, which is to pass on your genes.

 

Yet the average national IQ has been increasing in the last 40 years. There is no such thing as reverse evolution. Evolution is directionless.

 

I find that not to be true. Most exceptionally high IQ (over 130, the group defined in American schools as "gifted") people I meet are lazy. I count myself in that group. I find the above average IQ people to be the most successful and best workers (110-120 IQ)

 

No doubt. Just think that half of blacks are below 85. That is absurdly low. These are people who can barely read, let alone think about complex issues. I went into a dollar general the other day and, I'm not making this up, the clerk was not comfortable subtracting 4 from 7. She actually picked up a calculator to process the coupon.

The woman probably has 4 kids.

 

The problem is which IQ test are you using? There are a multitude of them. They result in different scores for the same people. Also, IQ tests are revised often, and renormed so that 100 is the average IQ. It's just plain stupid to try to compare the results of different IQ tests used in different countries, and use them to compare the countries. It just shows ignorance about what IQ tests are and what they mean.

- - - Updated - - -

And it is so ironic that you think that..... Some of us think that your inanity proves your point......

 

Is there a blue moon? I actually agree with you on something.

You are exactly correct.

 

This is illusory. The effects of good education and our advanced culture had not yet maxed out, so it was possible for IQ gains associated with better education to outpace the decrease in the innate aspect. The flat-lining has already begun in some countries, and I expect it to start going down in America, assuming the ******* academics don't try to fudge the data, as they always do when this issue comes up.

I would agree. The most successful people I know are highly competent but not world beaters by any means. Most of my friends are substantially more successful than I am, yet very few are my intellectual equal, which they openly acknowledge. Of course, they have money and I don't, so it isn't exactly hard to admit.

In fact, the average IQ of the top 10% of income earners is only 110.

 

Your idea is not new, but it is bigoted, extremely distasteful, and obviously unconstitutional under the Ninth Amendment.
http://racerelations.about.com/od/h...nments-Role-In-Sterilizing-Women-Of-Color.htm

 

And now a little of your actual underlying ideology starts to ooze out...

 

In fact what you said was:

I still managed to escape with an IQ over 85

Can you read? LOL

 

Isn't 127 over 85?

 

Not true. Evolution is a nonrandom process which proceeds in the direction of less to more fit for survival in regards to the environment the organism finds itself in. Unfortunately, our environment is completely artificial, and the breeding of the less fit is being subsidized, undermining the natural process.

 

wrong, Evolution doesn't always go in the direction of "more fit".

it can also go toward arbitrary distinctions of attractiveness, which have nothing to do with ability to better survive the elements or hunting.

Peacocks, for example.

 

Sorry to have to educate you, but that still counts as more fit because it gives them a breeding advantage which translates into more surviving offspring even if some die. It's a numbers game.

 

says who?

how is having a rainbow tail more fit than a blue tail?