UR stoopid, an gettin stoopiderer

[Svartalf]

Is that an averred fact or just your opinion?

[rainbow]

A libertarian advocating control over reproduction. Huh.

Some irony in this truly there is

You guys think he cares if he's coherent?

I'm not advocating eugenics, I'm merely pointing out its factual utility in terms of the continued advancement (or not) of the human race as a matter of intellectual debate and investigation.

From the Libertarian perspective, eugenics is self-effectuating because in a Libertarian society no one is compelled to support the genetically inferior or physically incapacitated or their progeny, they are required to support themselves without forcing others to help them survive, which puts natural selection back into the equation. This does not mean that Libertarians may not CHOOSE to provide such support out of empathy, sympathy, charity, altruism or rational self-interest, but, by way of example, they might condition their voluntary support for a genetically-defective person on an agreement that they not procreate or pass along their genetic defect to a new generation. That leaves the choice up to the individual whether they wish to go it alone and do as they please or be supported by others with charity but forgo having children by voluntary agreement, as is right and proper.

Absolutely.
If we didn't support the genetically inferior offspring of Libertarians, they would die out.

The logic is impeccable.

[rainbow]

Is that an averred fact or just your opinion?

yes.
Do you disagree?

[Svartalf]

I need data as to whether stupid doctrines are an actual proof of low IQ

[rainbow]

I need data as to whether stupid doctrines are an actual proof of low IQ

It would be an interesting study.

[Seth]

Eugenics or similar is not needed.

Within 100 years, humanity will be using genetic techniques to ensure that each new generation is genetically superior to the previous. This will start out expensive, and limited to the wealthy, but like all such things, will drop in price till everyone can do it for their children. What parent, given the choice, would not want their kids to be smarter, better looking, more athletic, more healthy etc?

They will try, but the advocates of the dependent class will view such technology as inherently racist and discriminatory and will make it illegal to use such technology.

And, the unintended consequences will come home to roost, as they have in China, which is even now rescinding it's "one child" policy because Chinese parents have been aborting female fetuses in favor of male fetuses for reasons of cultural bias, and this has resulted in a very dangerous situation where there are millions upon millions of Chinese men who will never be able to find a woman to marry or have children with because entire generations of Chinese females have been killed in utero. There is nothing more dangerous to societal or world peace than an excessive number of young men who can't get laid and have no hope for a family in the future. They tend to become very warlike and aggressive in their quest for pussy.

[Blind groper]

They will try, but the advocates of the dependent class will view such technology as inherently racist and discriminatory and will make it illegal to use such technology.

Such things do not usually last too long. If there is a demand for a specific service, and no real harm from it, in time the demand will overcome stupid opposition. Good example is artificial insemination of humans, which was strongly opposed in the 1950's and 1960's, and is now commonplace.

[JimC]

They will try, but the advocates of the dependent class will view such technology as inherently racist and discriminatory and will make it illegal to use such technology.

Such things do not usually last too long. If there is a demand for a specific service, and no real harm from it, in time the demand will overcome stupid opposition. Good example is artificial insemination of humans, which was strongly opposed in the 1950's and 1960's, and is now commonplace.

Turkey basters rule!

[Animavore]

Crabtree refuted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrls ... 2/nov/14/1

[Blind groper]

Crabtree refuted.

In science, any idea, to be accepted, has to do two things.

1. Offer a mechanism that is consistent with mainstream science.
2. Pass empirical testing. This is the more vital of the two requirements.

Crabtree found (as many others have) a mechanism consistent with mainstream science, and presented his idea based on this point alone. He totally failed to meet requirement number two, which is more important.

The Flynn Effect, on the other hand, was based on empirical testing, but was able to meet requirement one also, since IQ is known to be heavily dependent on learning. It is easy to show mechanisms by which learning is increasing IQ.

Any genetic effect, of the kind Crabtree refers to, is swamped by the learning effect.

[Tyrannical]

The Flynn Effect, on the other hand, was based on empirical testing, but was able to meet requirement one also, since IQ is known to be heavily dependent on learning. It is easy to show mechanisms by which learning is increasing IQ.

Actually the evidence is pointing out that IQ is not heavily dependent on environment, but on genetics. Environmental differences are much stronger at a very young age, but gradually decreases until by the mid 20's where genetics is responsible for ninety percent.

[Blind groper]

Tyrannical

That statement is a bit too definitive. The degree to which IQ is inherited is less than that - perhaps 80% in older people, and as low as 20% in infants - but the exact and correct degree is uncertain. However, there is no doubt that it is malleable by early learning to a substantial degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

[rainbow]

The Flynn Effect, on the other hand, was based on empirical testing, but was able to meet requirement one also, since IQ is known to be heavily dependent on learning. It is easy to show mechanisms by which learning is increasing IQ.

Actually the evidence is pointing out that IQ is not heavily dependent on environment, but on genetics. Environmental differences are much stronger at a very young age, but gradually decreases until by the mid 20's where genetics is responsible for ninety percent.

Absolutely. The Racist gene is linked to the Stupidity gene.

[Audley Strange]

The thing is, although I have myopia and probably many other features which may not have helped me deal with sabre toothed tigers, I deserve to reproduce because of my vast intelligence and bizarre appeal to females...

The nerds shall inherit the Earth.

And then die out in a generation when the female nerds biological clock makes them wander off to get pregnant by goats or something. Goatman hybrids shall inherit the earth... oh wait....

Pan's people shall inherit the earth.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Flynn Effect, on the other hand, was based on empirical testing, but was able to meet requirement one also, since IQ is known to be heavily dependent on learning. It is easy to show mechanisms by which learning is increasing IQ.

Actually the evidence is pointing out that IQ is not heavily dependent on environment, but on genetics. Environmental differences are much stronger at a very young age, but gradually decreases until by the mid 20's where genetics is responsible for ninety percent.

Really? Malnutrition, toxins in the air and water, inadequate supplies of certain vitamins, all can affect IQ in the first six months of life.