Dysgenics: Is the western society gene pool degenerating?

[Dis]

It's something I have always proposed over the years at poly. Only recently did I find out there was a word for this. This came about after looking at wiki articles on eugenics inspired by the 300 thread. The problem has always seemed obvious to me. Especially where I live where we can't find enough smart people to fill positions (though this may also be due to social and demographic reasons). In short, my city is a city of dumbasses. Well off families aren't reproducing, and the poor are. This has to have some effect on the gene pool eventually. Eventually there will not be enough doctors and scientists to take care of the population. Sure, robots and computers will take up some slack. But will it be enough?

I think kids should stop tormenting smart kids in school and causing them to have social problems like I have. . I know I'll never be able to reproduce. I have accepted this. It is society's downfall. Yes I have quite an ego lately. . Society will soon learn the error of their ways for the torment they have inflicted on me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenic

The real question is will civilization be able to support itself in the future, or will civilization crumble? So far, this phenomen seems limited to the west. Coutries like Japan have low birth rates all accross the board. Same with China (for other reasons). But they do not seem to support high birth rates for less intelligent people.

[C0ckney]

Re: Dysgenics: Is the western society gene pool degenerating?

Originally posted by Dis
Well off families aren't reproducing, and the poor are. This has to have some effect on the gene pool eventually.

no, it's always been the case the 'poor' have reproduced more. also the implication the wealthy are somehow genetically better than the less well off is bull****.

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Dysgenics: Is the western society gene pool degenerating?

Originally posted by C0ckney


no, it's always been the case the 'poor' have reproduced more. also the implication the wealthy are somehow genetically better than the less well off is bull****.

True.

However, I would say that intelligent people seem to choose to have no children far more frequently than the general population. This trend would probably concern Dis as much if not more.

[Dis]

Re: Re: Dysgenics: Is the western society gene pool degenerating?

Originally posted by C0ckney


no, it's always been the case the 'poor' have reproduced more. also the implication the wealthy are somehow genetically better than the less well off is bull****.

ahh but the articles I have been reading show that intelligence pretty much directly relates to income and poverty rates. There are exceptions of course. Some scientists prefer to live as poor recluses.

Small differences in average IQ at the group level might theoretically have large effects on social outcomes. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray altered the mean IQ (100) of the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth's population sample by randomly deleting individuals below an IQ of 103 until the population mean reached 103. This calculation was conducted twice and averaged together to avoid error from the random selection. This test showed that the new group with an average IQ of 103 had a poverty rate 25% lower than a group with an average IQ of 100. Similar substantial correlations in high school drop-out rates, crime rates, and other outcomes were measured.

[Geronimo]

I wish this sort of discussion more socially acceptable since decades down the line some sort of intervention will likely be required.

What shoots it down is the inevitable racist hijacking of any such discussion as a tool to justify their social pathologies.

[Dis]

I agree. Especially as there is no real need to discuss race. There are poor and stupid people everywhere. Regardless of race. And they are ****ing like bunnies.

Not that I wouldn't mind ****ing like bunnies. Which begs the question. Would you want a large family? I think I would limit things to 4 if I had any authority in the matter. 1 is too low, and only children have it rough in some ways.

[Victor Galis]

Yeah, damn those Nazis for giving eugenics a bad name

[Dis]

damn the nazis for giving nazis a bad name

[MOBIUS]

What with global warming threatening the future of billions, we need to clear the way for the smart people and the true contributors to society.

I suggest screening unborn babies to weed out those with genetic defects for a start, culling those with low IQ's starting slightly higher than Slowwhand's, maybe killing off the long term sick, obese and unemployed, privatising healthcare and generally making sure that if you can't fend for yourself instead of sponging off the state, and the human race in general, then society has no place for you...

[Victor Galis]

But, I had a discussion on this topic on the ride back from a debate tournament.

The one thing you may not have considered: The people of higher socio-economic status who reproduce less will divide their wealth amongst fewer offspring, while the unwashed masses will further screw themselves by having more kids, being unable to invest as much in their education or give them as much in inheritance. This will lead to aggregation of capital in the hands of increasingly fewer people at the top.

In the end I suggested a 1984-like system of having an Inner Party, Outer Party, and a bunch of proles who don't matter. The principle difference would be that the party members would have some say in the government. I also compared this to Athenian democracy (with something like 20% of the male population having a vote) as perhaps a better comparison than 1984.

At any rate, my friend and I, typically left-wingers cynically agreed that if problems with natural selection in modern society were as grave as stated, oppressing the masses might be desirable. Then again, I really do enjoy playing the devil's advocate in the context of debate.

[EyesOfNight]

Lets face it MOBIUS, were this to be enacted you and your family would be the first to go. Here's to culling the genetically weak from the gene pool.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
What with global warming threatening the future of billions, we need to clear the way for the smart people and the true contributors to society.

I suggest screening unborn babies to weed out those with genetic defects for a start, culling those with low IQ's starting slightly higher than Slowwhand's, maybe killing off the long term sick, obese and unemployed, privatising healthcare and generally making sure that if you can't fend for yourself instead of sponging off the state, and the human race in general, then society has no place for you...

No, better yet, we should take the poor and the stupid and put them in forced-labor camps. Making them work for us





















But I will miss you guys...

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Drixnak
Lets face it MOBIUS, were this to be enacted you and your family would be the first to go.

I was about to say this but didn't want to threadjack. Now that you've done it for me... you're right.

[Kidlicious]

Is there any evidence that itelligence is an inheritable trait? The last time I considered this stuff there was not.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Is there any evidence that itelligence is an inheritable trait?

You're ****ting me, right?