I'd say there's a flaw in that reasoning, Fatum. There's
yet to be any particularly compelling research that demonstrates
the link between genetics and intelligence. Hell, Spearman
suggested the concept of g more than a century ago and
nobody's yet been able to measure it. Bottom line is that
notwithstanding the political incorrectness of the concept, we
still don't know enough to "breed for intelligence".
well, the way I see it ged, it's like those scientists who say
global warming and climate change is nothing to worry about, cos we
have not determined whether there's a real link between human
activities and climate change yet, so it's okay to go on burning
hydro carbons, it's okay to keep stripping forests.
I've been pretty stoked by this topic every since I picked up a
copy of the bell curve yonks ago (yeah, more political
incorrectness !)
I still think what I've suggested is something instuitive. Like
the puppy example I gave over in night owls last night. You want
certain physical traits in a puppy, floppy ears, bushy tail etc,
you get together a pair with these traits and breed them. the
resulting pupsies, at least some of them, would exhibit the traits
you want eh ? So why not humans ? And if physical traits can be
inherited, why not mental ability ?
I was quite disturbed when I read the bell curve of course, but
that book and related publications I followed up with threw up a
lot of uncomfortable correlations between socio-economic
circumstances and cognitive abilities. Between teenage pregnancies,
substance abuse, delinquency, family dysfunction, welfare
dependency and cognitive ability. Oh I'm sure sociologist can come
up with lots of other reasons, poverty cycle, pure bad luck etc
etc. But I think the correlation is a fact, an uncomfortable one,
but one that's got to be taken into account.
True, offspring cognitive ability is probably a function of a
lot of other more complex factors than just pure genetics alone,
but I think we'd be deluding ourselves if we pretend genetics is a
determinant in all other physical traits except mental ability.
It's definitely part of the equation, the only real question should
be just, by how much, eh ?
I think if we're to get down from the ivory tower and not talk
about breeding for the species and colonizing the stars etc, each
of us has a duty to pass on the best genes we could to our intended
offsprings, to give them the best headstart in life. Cos like is or
not, the processor one is born with, is the one one is stuck with,
for life. Not pretty, not handsome, nevermind, surgery can fix, not
smart ? well, no one's invented a smart pill yet eh.
Sure, people like to talk about the latter day's hard work being
more important, but let's not kid ourselves, an overclocked 486
would never compare to the latest i7 core from intel, eh ? The
potential is innate. A chap gifted with an i7 can choose to be lazy
and not go to school etc, but we mustn't confuse that with the lack
of innate potential eh ?
And I think this line of thought is getting more and more
important nowadays. Modern life is incresingly demanding, mentally.
The IQ required to function in modern society has been inching ever
upwards. Computers, hps, traffic systems, transport systems, our
work tools, are all getting more and more complex as we move into
an information based age. Our ability to thrive and prosper in this
environment increasingly depend on our ability to process and react
to information. Our IQ, in other words. People on the left side of
the bell curve would be left further and further behind in this new
world.
