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.
Hmm. I can appreciate your
enthusiasm, and at one level I would lean that way as
well. However, there are a few factors that
temper said enthusiasm.
First, let's take a look at cases that defy the concept
of eugenics. JFK Junior was a failure as a law
student and a fashion dilettante before mistaking his plane for a
submarine. The Hiltons have rightfully washed
their hands of Paris, and Dubya - well, need I say more? 
Let's look at the flip side. Hermann
Einstein sold beds. Alexander Fleming, a
farmer’s son. Anatoly Karpov, son of a factory
worker. And those are just the famous
ones. The people I work with have a mean
education level of a Master’s, and all of them come from ordinary
backgrounds.
On one end of the scale, the argument against eugenics
is, “just because you can doesn’t mean you
should”. On the other end of the scale is, “how
scary can this get?”. We’ve been here
before. Berlin 1933-1945 is probably the example
that comes to most people’s minds –Neitzsche said Uberman and
Hitler turned it into the Untermenschen. Mind
you, the Krauts aren’t the only guilty ones; for more than 50 years
the Americans made a policy of sterilising non-ideal
citizens. It’s not just that eugenics has been
proven time and time again to not work – the idea is plain
dangerous.
The flip-side of socio-economic status aspect of the
Bell curve highlights the “nurture” aspect of
intelligence. Put this together with the fact
that physiologically, higher cognitive ability is associated with
the density of connections between neurons, which in turn are
influenced with the amount of stimulation that the brain is exposed
to, and a much more convincing influence on intelligence is how
intellectually stimulating the environment is, especially in early
childhood, and hell, nutrition may have something to do with it as
well.
The bottom line is that on philosophical, logical and
physiological grounds, there’s a case against eugenics.
