[Grizzly]

I wouldn't say "incredibly" doubtful. There are already correlations between race and observable characteristics like skull size (which has a small IQ correlation) as mentioned in my sources, above and beyond SES and nutrition effects.

So what, exactly, is the correlation between IQ and skull size?

.25 in this study. You can Google it too.

I find this rather hard to believe, when compared to the original link, which said something about Asians getting higher school results then anybody else. Even though Asians tend to have smaller skull sizes and heigth overall...

[Mustang19]

genetic predispositions toward schizophrenia or Down syndrome

Is there one? I mean, is there a clinically proven, 99.99% accurate test to determine whether a) such symptoms will manifest in any children and, b) an accurate test to determine whether you are predisposed to pass them on, even if you yourself do not exhibit any symptoms?

inb4 slippery slope & hitler

Go ahead. Tell us what you really feel. And then find arguments just why you should be spared, if all the idiocy you advocate really should be enforced.

I am pro-eugenics if that's what you mean. Surely you don't think that the effect of genes on behavior is minimal. You can't determine with 100% accuracy if someone will be schizophrenic given their genes because environment is also a factor; there's still a hereditary component to this and other diseases, and it's incidence could be significantly reduced of these predispositions were breeded out.

[General Battuta]

It's impossible to do what you're suggesting by the means you're suggesting without compromising basic human rights.

Gene therapy on the other hand would be a much more humane approach.

[Mustang19]

It's impossible to do what you're suggesting by the means you're suggesting without compromising basic human rights.

Gene therapy on the other hand would be a much more humane approach.

Except the exact genes involved in many heritable disorders are unknown, and using gene therapy without consent violates human rights anyway.

[General Battuta]

It's impossible to do what you're suggesting by the means you're suggesting without compromising basic human rights.

Gene therapy on the other hand would be a much more humane approach.

Except the exact genes involved in many heritable disorders are unknown, and using gene therapy without consent violates human rights anyway.

Who said anything about using gene therapy without consent?

If you can't identify the genes and get consent, you're out of luck. Nothing you can do.

[The E]

So if a doctor were to tell you "Sorry, but you have a x-% chance of passing on genes to your offspring that, under certain conditions, may make them more susceptible to this-or-that medical condition, so by state law, we have to make you infertile", you'd be OK with that?

On a personal note, as someone who wouldn't have been born if such a eugenics program were to be instituted (Judging by the only historical precedent for such a thing we have, Nazi Germany), let me just say that you're a moron who should never be allowed anywhere near a position of influence.

Now, as Batman said, if a cure was developed that would remove these risk factors, I'd be completely behind the idea of rolling it out, but telling people "Sorry, you can't procreate, you're a risk to public health due to your offspring being more susceptible to the common cold" is such a massive dick move, it's not funny.

Except the exact genes involved in many heritable disorders are unknown, and using gene therapy without consent violates human rights anyway.

And you're willing to sterilize people on the basis that their offspring might be more vulnerable than the norm. Tell me what is worse.

[Mustang19]

Exactly, E. Eventually the genetic predispositions would be eliminated from the population and such policies would be unnecessary. It doesn't have to be mandatory, financial incentives work too.

So is anyone here in favor of mandatory gene therapy?

[General Battuta]

You have no idea of the adaptive value of these genetic predispositions, or what larger constellations they may be part of. Eliminating them from the population would reduce genetic diversity (almost always bad) and could unintentionally knock out a whole swarm of other traits. What's more, the phenomena are so widespread that breeding them out of the population would probably take an unrealistically long time.

Idea's dead on arrival.

[The E]

And wouldn't be possible anyway, because in a population of more than 7 billion people, there is no way to enforce your bull****.

[Mustang19]

The thing is, no such policy has ever been tried before on a large scale. There's no solid evidence that eugenics can improve fitness but there's no evidence against it either. You can always argue that a policy intended to increase genetic predispositions for intelligence and motivation has the risk of being counterproductive in some way.

Unless you present experimental evidence of eugenics reducing adaptive value, all either of us can give are theoretical arguments. There are simply no studies on this.

And wouldn't be possible anyway, because in a population of more than 7 billion people, there is no way to enforce your bull****.

Financial incentives. It might work in one country.

[General Battuta]

Unless you present experimental evidence of eugenics reducing adaptive value, all either of us can give are theoretical arguments. There are simply no studies on this.

Untrue. (exploratory example here, but the broader point of unanticipated trait constellations is much more well-researched)

However, even given no evidence, and choice between a dubious course of action which violates fundamental human rights and a course of action which doesn't, I think we know where the arrow points.

The thing is, no such policy has ever been tried before on a large scale.

Yes it has.

[Mustang19]

Untrue.

Okay, are there studies proving that eugenics reduces adaptive fitness or has no effect?

[General Battuta]

Untrue.

Okay, are there studies proving that eugenics reduces adaptive fitness or has no effect?

That's not the question. The answer to the question you should be asking is in my last post. But if you want it spelled out, the question you need to ask is, does reducing population diversity on a given allele or constellation of alleles reduce fitness, often in unanticipated ways.

[General Battuta]

You're starting to sideslip points again. Stop.

[The E]

So, if there is no evidence either way, how come you're convinced it's an effective measure? How come that there IS no evidence? Why do you think that no large scale tests on the subjects you keep talking about have ever been performed?

Oh, and there is a ton of evidence against eugenics. I'm sure Batman can come up with examples, but any population in which the gene pool has been "slimmed down" is even more susceptible to rare conditions than one that is operating normally. Oh hey, what's this? http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=75456.0 Might be relevant.

[Mustang19]

That's not the question. The answer to the question you should be asking is in my last post. But if you want it spelled out, the question you need to ask is, does reducing population diversity on a given allele or constellation of alleles reduce fitness, often in unanticipated ways.

Are you going to present a study proving this?

[The E]

Case in point. There's a clear correlation between the genepool size and the susceptibility of a population to disease (Side note: Why, exactly, do you think that mixed-race people are considered to be more attractive than pure-bred whites?)

[General Battuta]

That's not the question. The answer to the question you should be asking is in my last post. But if you want it spelled out, the question you need to ask is, does reducing population diversity on a given allele or constellation of alleles reduce fitness, often in unanticipated ways.

Are you going to present a study proving this?

This is common knowledge. Just off the top of my head you have the Johnny Depp hypothesis, the sickle cell anemia/malaria situation, the unanticipated benefits of diversity on the CCR5 allele - heterozygosity in the population is important to fitness. This is why we're attracted to highly divergent MHC histocomplexes (exactly what The_E said about mixed-race people).

I honestly don't think you can even discuss the topic of eugenics without a knowledge of population biology, and I'm not seeing that demonstrated.

[Mustang19]

Good point E but that's not what I'm saying. We're talking about eugenics. Disease resistance can be specifically selected for - case in point, the practice of plant breeding. I'd like to see any study showing the effects of intentional, planned eugenics on fitness.

[The E]

You cannot boost a generic trait like disease resistance. There are far too many diseases operating on far too many vectors for that. In plant biology, you can boost a species resistance against specific conditions, but you can't make a plant completely resistant against everything.