Pop Control?

[Quixotic]

Does anyone else see the urgency for global population control? Granted there are some countries that have a negative population growth such as Japan, but this is only recently. The U.S. on the other hand is growing at greater than 1% a year. That means the population will double in about 65 years or so. I think much of the naivety comes from the lack of fore-sight in many people. Heck, most people aren’t willing to even develop a savings account for emergencies let alone worry about more global issues. It is a sad state when too many people believe it is alright to live in debt and paycheck to paycheck. I believe there are those that are able to think on a global and sometimes universal level, while many are simply concerned with their own satisfaction and ego gratification.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Vox Animo]

Yes, population control is going to be a huge problem in the future. Right now, this is accoording to a professor at my school who is an environmental scientist, the growth rate of the US is 2.1%. This is fine because that is replacement rate, our population will not raise too dramaticly. American citizens though only have 1.8% growth, its the immigration rates that keep us afloat. China's growth rate is .7%. They have implemented the strongest birth control laws in any country. However, there still are so many people at reproducting ages, that there population (1 billion) will not start to drop for over 40 years. Here is a scary thought, if every couple in the world decided to have only one child, the Earth's population would rise to over 9 billion before it would begin to level off (again this is base of information from class). There are many areas of the globe that are have continual exponential growth, so someting is going to have to be done, this planet can only support so many people.

 

[trustwomen]

The best way (and the only morally acceptable one, IMO) to ensure flat or negative population growth is to give women the same economic and educational opportunities as men. Once that is done, you wind up with a flat or negative growth rate. The women naturally control population for you, mainly by deciding to delay, minimize and/or forgo childbearing in order to enjoy these new freedoms and this newfound power.

Canada and Western Europe are in a situation of flat or negative population growth right now, and everybody there complains about it because the capitalist economic system DEPENDS on increasing population (i.e. expansion of markets) - and so this is a real economic threat. And increasing immigration to compensate for it just gets everybody in a racist, xenophobic tizzy. Japan is also nearing flat population growth due to the rise of the professional woman who chooses not to marry because, let's face it, marriage is a sucky deal for Japanese women. The US does not have flat growth because the economic opportunities for poor women are just not there, the social safety net sucks, and higher education is horrendously overpriced. Studies have shown that teen girls have babies when they don't see any reason why they shouldn't. i.e. what else do they have to look forward to other than motherhood anyway? The same applies to developing countries. In countries lacking a social safety net, children become your pension plan (it is assumed they will take care of you when you are old) and so people have as many as possible to increase their odds. (I know, I'm generalizing, but we are dealing with population-level studies here). It seems counterintuitive, but those with the least reason to breed (economically) will have lots of kids, and those with the most resources will breed less. Just look at the stats.

To stabilize population? The answer is simple, but far from easy: Liberate women. Whether there is the political will to do this, and whether it could happen fast enough to save the earth, is another question. And, of course, we need to modify our economic system to FIT a stable or declining population - right now it really really doesn't work under those circumstances.

Policies to limit population growth involve the massive violation of basic human rights and are morally repugnant. I honestly would rather see the human race die out while trying to do the right thing, than see it survive because of evil and inhuman tactics.

p.s. it would also help if we eased the stigma of childlessness (you're selfish, you have no purpose to your life, you're a waste of space if you don't breed, etc...) which is quite strong, even today, and especially for women.

 

[Vox Animo]

The best way (and the only morally acceptable one, IMO) to ensure flat or negative population growth is to give women the same economic and educational opportunities as men. Once that is done, you wind up with a flat or negative growth rate. The women naturally control population for you, mainly by deciding to delay, minimize and/or forgo childbearing in order to enjoy these new freedoms and this newfound power.

Canada and Western Europe are in a situation of flat or negative population growth right now, and everybody there complains about it because the capitalist economic system DEPENDS on increasing population (i.e. expansion of markets) - and so this is a real economic threat. And increasing immigration to compensate for it just gets everybody in a racist, xenophobic tizzy. Japan is also nearing flat population growth due to the rise of the professional woman who chooses not to marry because, let's face it, marriage is a sucky deal for Japanese women. The US does not have flat growth because the economic opportunities for poor women are just not there, the social safety net sucks, and higher education is horrendously overpriced. Studies have shown that teen girls have babies when they don't see any reason why they shouldn't. i.e. what else do they have to look forward to other than motherhood anyway? The same applies to developing countries. In countries lacking a social safety net, children become your pension plan (it is assumed they will take care of you when you are old) and so people have as many as possible to increase their odds. (I know, I'm generalizing, but we are dealing with population-level studies here). It seems counterintuitive, but those with the least reason to breed (economically) will have lots of kids, and those with the most resources will breed less. Just look at the stats.

To stabilize population? The answer is simple, but far from easy: Liberate women. Whether there is the political will to do this, and whether it could happen fast enough to save the earth, is another question. And, of course, we need to modify our economic system to FIT a stable or declining population - right now it really really doesn't work under those circumstances.

Policies to limit population growth involve the massive violation of basic human rights and are morally repugnant. I honestly would rather see the human race die out while trying to do the right thing, than see it survive because of evil and inhuman tactics.

p.s. it would also help if we eased the stigma of childlessness (you're selfish, you have no purpose to your life, you're a waste of space if you don't breed, etc...) which is quite strong, even today, and especially for women.

Some excellent points. I know many people in college that never want to have kids. Its funny, in an art history class this issue came up while studying roman art. Augustus made laws to encourage people to have more children because most of the Roman Elite did not want to have kids becasue of the cushy life they lived, and more and more foreignors had to be allowed in the city, which caused racial problems like you said. This is much like what is happening in America with hispanic immigration and europe with muslim immigration. The best birth conrol in the world is educating women.

 

[Shredder]

offer subsidies in exchange for sterilizations, easiest way. in effect its the same as a china-like 1 child (or 0, 1, 2, any #) policy, without having to worry about enforcement. offer better tax breaks for the elite to reproduce. singapore enacted something like the latter. population is a big issue--much of the world is still stuck in malthusian subsistence traps, and foreign aid or volunteering wont help them. its overly hopeful to place much faith in education--most ppl arent capable of heeding it, were not talking about SDNers here. its like saying education will get someone into med school who cannot break 15 on the MCAt; not going to happen, so might as well try to face reality and work with it in other ways

when ppl discuss birth control they focus on the moral aspects of it and ignore the genetic, much more important aspects. birth control is proving to be disastrous in terms of population genetics. were all here bc a line of countless ancestors successfully overcame various odds and reproduced. one who bears no children ends that = complete evolutionary failure

opposition to mass immigration isnt all about xenophobia and racism as the left would claim--"diverse" societies historically dont work, there has to be a dominant culture that assimilates newcomers. multiculturalism=collapse, its fact not speculation. also the planet can support a whole lot more ppl than currently exist. but the resource allocation is such that certain areas are already overburdened and others not really

in summary, more than population control we need to worry about getting much of the world out of malthusian existence. as for the negatively growing societies (usa, japan) thats easier to solve, i believe

 

[QuikClot]

We could pass the hat for Shedder's castration. Five bucks from me to start.

Come on, SDNers. It's for the gene pool!

 

[trustwomen]

All liberals please put me on ignore

Ten-four. Done.

 

[Shredder]

success, keep it coming

 

[medhacker]

We could pass the hat for Shedder's castration. Five bucks from me to start.

Come on, SDNers. It's for the gene pool!

 

[Quixotic]

It’s good to have an educated and open discussion about this topic as many people either aren’t aware or don’t care. Much of what needs to be done must be done tactfully and ethically. I can see the problem with limiting the gene pool as many of those that decide to forego having children are the most educated and intellectually endowed, while the less driven and often psychologically or financially constrained teenagers are still have children. However, I must point out that in either case this doesn’t predict the type of parent one will become, just the opportunities open to the child to succeed.

I would be in favor of tax relief for those that decide not to have children. The best way to do this is to reduce the standard deduction for those with children, therein it doesn’t look like a tax on those who have children. I am all for immigration, though on a regulated scale. No one should be denied the opportunity for a better life. Hell, if I was born in Central America and saw the opportunities in the U.S. I would be tempted to make a better life for myself by coming here. I just so happen be lucky and was born here.

Another issue many forget is adoption. There are so many unwanted children in this world that someone should be able to provide a good home for them. This is another instance that should provide tax relief for the individual adopting rather than increasing the population through procreation.

 

[f_w]

I can see the problem with limiting the gene pool as many of those that decide to forego having children are the most educated and intellectually endowed, while the less driven and often psychologically or financially constrained teenagers are still have children. However, I must point out that in either case this doesn’t predict the type of parent one will become, just the opportunities open to the child to succeed.

These thoughts are right out of the eugenics ideology of the 1930s (and we know where that got us).

 

[trustwomen]

It is a sad state when too many people believe it is alright to live in debt and paycheck to paycheck.

I believe there are those that are able to think on a global and sometimes universal level, while many are simply concerned with their own satisfaction and ego gratification.

For the first: you say this like most of them have a choice. Read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich and then get back to me. Also research: housing bubble.

For the second: it's delusional to think that there are people unconcerned with their own satisfaction and ego gratification. We are just not that evolved. If being a doctor would get you belittled and shunned by society, would any of us be doing it? No matter how many people we could help? Those who claim to be thinking "for the planet" always include, all too conveniently, their own satisfaction and ego gratification into their philosophical equations.

Examples:

"I'd be willing to forgo having children because of overpopulation" = "I don't really want them anyway and this will definitely get me laid" or "I can envision lots of really fun lifestyle alternatives, and I'm lucky enough to have the money/power/independence to make them come true"

"Those who can't provide for their children should be sterilized" = "I'm pretty sure I can provide for my children, so to hell with your rights" or "those who are less wealthy than me cannot possibly provide adequately for children"

"I minimize my ecological footprint every day" = "I've made a few lifestyle alterations but I'd never live like a member of the developing world in order to help save the planet"

"We've chosen to only have one or two children so as to avoid contributing to overpopulation" = "But since we have a middle or upper-class life in the U.S., our one child will consume resources equivalent to about 50 third-world children anyway, so that woman in Africa having 8 kids is really being more ecologically sound"

"X type of person is better for the planet than Y type of person" = "I am X type of person"

et cetera...

I'm just peeved, I guess. Had a class today about gene therapy and thought - wow, how amazing this is, how brilliant we are... then remembered, damn, we still can't even feed everyone. Or grow up enough to get past the most basic of tribal conflicts (and yes, I have a flexible definition of "tribe"). As far as monkeys go, we still sort of suck.

Must now resort to the starfish parable to comfort myself...

 

[DrBowtie]

For the first: you say this like most of them have a choice. Read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich and then get back to me. Also research: housing bubble.

For the second: it's delusional to think that there are people unconcerned with their own satisfaction and ego gratification. We are just not that evolved. If being a doctor would get you belittled and shunned by society, would any of us be doing it? No matter how many people we could help? Those who claim to be thinking "for the planet" always include, all too conveniently, their own satisfaction and ego gratification into their philosophical equations.

Examples:

"I'd be willing to forgo having children because of overpopulation" = "I don't really want them anyway and this will definitely get me laid" or "I can envision lots of really fun lifestyle alternatives, and I'm lucky enough to have the money/power/independence to make them come true"

"Those who can't provide for their children should be sterilized" = "I'm pretty sure I can provide for my children, so to hell with your rights" or "those who are less wealthy than me cannot possibly provide adequately for children"

"I minimize my ecological footprint every day" = "I've made a few lifestyle alterations but I'd never live like a member of the developing world in order to help save the planet"

"We've chosen to only have one or two children so as to avoid contributing to overpopulation" = "But since we have a middle or upper-class life in the U.S., our one child will consume resources equivalent to about 50 third-world children anyway, so that woman in Africa having 8 kids is really being more ecologically sound"

"X type of person is better for the planet than Y type of person" = "I am X type of person"

et cetera...

I'm just peeved, I guess. Had a class today about gene therapy and thought - wow, how amazing this is, how brilliant we are... then remembered, damn, we still can't even feed everyone. Or grow up enough to get past the most basic of tribal conflicts (and yes, I have a flexible definition of "tribe"). As far as monkeys go, we still sort of suck.

Must now resort to the starfish parable to comfort myself...

I thought Nickel and Dimed was a poor attempt to demonstrate the disparity. It was hard to take her serious when both the reader and Ehrenrich herself knew she would be going back home sooner or later. She always had a safety net.

Not a big fan of the book.

 

[trustwomen]

I thought Nickel and Dimed was a poor attempt to demonstrate the disparity. It was hard to take her serious when both the reader and Ehrenrich herself knew she would be going back home sooner or later. She always had a safety net.

She did have a safety net, but I thought her empathy showed through regardless. Besides, one could argue that the safety net was what enabled her to write about the experience with dry wit instead of complete anger/desperation. Full disclosure: I may be biased in favour of the book, as my context for reading it was that of a book club for Harvard grads (plus me, for some reason): and I was the only one in the group who had actually ever worked for minimum wage. Ehrenreich humanized it for them in ways I could not, even in person. I especially liked how she demonstrated that living in poverty, in and of itself, can affect the traits usually associated with "character" - the supposedly "innate" traits we use to feel superior to the poor.

But hey, interpretation is individual and you have an absolute right to your opinion.

Here's hoping your avatar is a demonstration of your sarcastic wit.

 

[Shredder]

It’s good to have an educated and open discussion about this topic as many people either aren’t aware or don’t care. Much of what needs to be done must be done tactfully and ethically. I can see the problem with limiting the gene pool as many of those that decide to forego having children are the most educated and intellectually endowed, while the less driven and often psychologically or financially constrained teenagers are still have children. However, I must point out that in either case this doesn’t predict the type of parent one will become, just the opportunities open to the child to succeed.

I would be in favor of tax relief for those that decide not to have children. The best way to do this is to reduce the standard deduction for those with children, therein it doesn’t look like a tax on those who have children. I am all for immigration, though on a regulated scale. No one should be denied the opportunity for a better life. Hell, if I was born in Central America and saw the opportunities in the U.S. I would be tempted to make a better life for myself by coming here. I just so happen be lucky and was born here.

Another issue many forget is adoption. There are so many unwanted children in this world that someone should be able to provide a good home for them. This is another instance that should provide tax relief for the individual adopting rather than increasing the population through procreation.

quixotic as premeds most of us have some understanding of genetics, and one of the most overlooked premises of demographic issues is that not all offspring are created equal. if you imagine a pool of racehorses and all of a sudden they decide to stop multiplying, the metaphor becomes clear. you probably wouldnt as just as happy to pluck some wild stallions from the field and throw them in the race with the same odds. adoption studies have shown that heredity has a markedly higher correlation to SES than the SES of adoptive parents. parenting ability is not as important as inherent capacities of children. highly gifted children end up creating their own opportunities to succeed--its the internal locus of control they have.

angelinas adoption choice is a tragedy. i hope she has biological children with brad, it would be a killer crossing over of genes. in contrast, her adopted child will never ascend the ranks to hollywood stardom. consider kate hudson. adoption in nature rarely (but not never, although this gets intricate) happens. its counter to evolutionary instinct--why invest so much in propagating foreign genes? as blunt and politically incorrect as it is, do you think if we set up a massive baby production and distribution center in zimbabwe or among the aborigines of australia and cease production elsewhere that humanity will be just as well off?

providing tax relief for the childless would be a catastrophe. all of the wealthiest and most genetically blessed members of society would slowly see their genes hit evolutionary dead ends. societies will see throngs of racehorses succumb to wild stallions, all because of poorly conceived incentive schemes. whipping stallions and feeding them science diet will only make them run so fast; racehorses will still triumph. same with rice rockets versus italian sports cars, unless you add a jet but thats cheating. a city that is overflowing with geo metros is different from one flooded with ferraris. lots of metaphorical but i hope you can decipher.

in summary, the world could easily support 10 billion efficient geniuses all living great lives, but 5 billion mediocre humans leads to many struggling for subsistence lifestyles. and that is why overpopulation is more than meets the eye

 

[QuikClot]

Fifteen dollars in the pool. Anyone?

 

[trustwomen]

Fifteen dollars in the pool. Anyone?

Eh, I'll pass. I don't think that this particular brand of idiocy is heritable anyway. It's all about the early childhood environment, baby

So - this is an neat thread. Looking forward to reading and responding to some interesting opinions. Like those of everyone who has posted so far (with one notable exception).

 

[medhacker]

Fifteen dollars in the pool. Anyone?

 

[DrBowtie]

She did have a safety net, but I thought her empathy showed through regardless. Besides, one could argue that the safety net was what enabled her to write about the experience with dry wit instead of complete anger/desperation. Full disclosure: I may be biased in favour of the book, as my context for reading it was that of a book club for Harvard grads (plus me, for some reason): and I was the only one in the group who had actually ever worked for minimum wage. Ehrenreich humanized it for them in ways I could not, even in person. I especially liked how she demonstrated that living in poverty, in and of itself, can affect the traits usually associated with "character" - the supposedly "innate" traits we use to feel superior to the poor.

But hey, interpretation is individual and you have an absolute right to your opinion.

Here's hoping your avatar is a demonstration of your sarcastic wit.

I'll dig up a paper I did on this book and post some excerpts if you would like to have a discussion of the book.

 

[Vox Animo]

A capatilistic society necessitates a popluation growth of 2.1%, like a said earlier, so reducing America's poplulation will hurt us in the long wrong. It will cause a huge retired population supported by a shrinking working population. But an interesting point nonetheless, how much longer can our world support 300 million Americans consuming at the rate that we do.

A frustrating thing right now, the head of the professor union, as a philanthropy for the union, has been traveling to Africa with others to teach safe sex practives and birth control. They recieved a grant from the government, with the stipulation that they only teach abstinence. So their campaign is ineffective. Our own government is not allowing effective practices to be taught to reduce population growth in some of its fastest growing areas. But I digress.

 

[trustwomen]

Our own government is not allowing effective practices to be taught to reduce population growth in some of its fastest growing areas. But I digress.

That isn't a digression - in fact, it's right on topic. Increasing access to birth control, while it would greatly help in reducing population growth, is not enough to cause a stable world population. As long as children are your pension plan, and women's "highest calling" (read: best opportunity for a decent life) is motherhood, we will still see significant population growth leading to probable global catastrophe.

However, increasing access to birth control and abortion services (on a voluntary basis, of course, NOT coerced by financial or legal means) would indeed help slow this process and buy us a lot of time, not to mention giving people control over their family size and therefore their lives (which is intrinsically good as well). But as long as we continue to see sexual activity as a moral issue and not a health issue, we will be unable to think rationally about these things. Look up the "global gag rule" if you really want to get pissed off! (info at: http://www.globalgagrule.org/)

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

Is it just me or has population control become a fancy term for killing mainly minorities???

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

Is it just me or has population control become a fancy term for killing mainly minorities???

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/depop/Chap7.html
Angela Davis in her "Women, Race and Class" has pointed her reader to a very interesting point with regard to the relation of the women of color to reproductive right movement. If the right of controlling one's fertility is obviously advantageous to women of all class and race then, she questioned, why there was no substantial number of colored women in birth control movement of America? "The women of color were far more familiar than their white sisters with the murderously clumsy scalpels of inept abortionists seeking profit in illegality. In New York, for instance, during the several years preceding the decriminalization of abortions in that state, some 80 percent of the deaths caused by illegal abortions involved Black and Puerto Rican women" (Davis 1981). If this was the reality, then the women of color should have been participating in a large number in the birth control movement. But that was not what happened.

Literature of the period claimed that the women of color were overburdened by their people's fight against racism; and/or they hid not yet become conscious of the centrality of sexism. Angela Davis rejects both explanations and sought deeper to dissect the "almost lily-white complexion of the abortion right campaign" (ibid. p. 203).

The reason she pointed out is the racist nature of birth control movement. According to her, and amply substantiated by history, the white abortion rights activists --- had been known to advocate involuntary sterilization --- a racist form of mass "birth control".

On the basis of the perception of the women of color to the birth control movement Angela made a sharp analytical distinction between standing up for the "abortion right" and "to be a proponent of abortion". Black and Latina women are clearly for "abortion right" but this does not mean that they are "proponents of abortion". There is a distinction between the "desire to be free of pregnancy" and "the miserable social conditions which dissuade [a women] from bringing new lives into the world." This is where she is brilliantly hinting the need to separate the white and racist reproductive right notion from the "right" urged by Black and Latina women. Reproductive right does not have to mean control of the population of all other colors except white.

The demand for reproductive right emerged into focus as the general movement for women's right gained momentum. Sarah Grimke argued in 1850 for "... right on the part of women to decide when she shall become a mother, how often and under what circumstances," (quoted by Angela Davis, ibid. p-203). Reproductive right advocates echo her by words but conveniently forget that Sarah Grimke also advocated women's right to sexual abstinence. This is important to understand how reproductive right has eventually become to mean availability and increased use of modern contraceptives. This happened because of the movement's increasing alliance with the population controllers and the MNCs.

Capitalism increasingly draws women into the labour market and opens up the possibility of pursuing a career as an individual person outside their kitchen. In order to exercise the political right they might win and to engage in productive role in the civil society they felt the need to control their fertility. If women remained forever burdened by incessant childbirths and frequent miscarriages. they would hardly be able to exercise to pursue I life outside their marriage and motherhood. The demand for reproductive right is therefore a demand to be integrated with the processes of capitalism, the demand of the potential female labour desirous to be a contributor to the production of wealth by the capitalists. The early slogan of "voluntary motherhood" is to be seen in this light. Compared to the existing reality in which women were living it contained a genuinely progressive vision of womanhood. "At the same time, however, this vision was rigidly bound to the lifestyle enjoyed by the middle classes and the bourgeoisie." The more fundamental right of the working class women at the level of economic survival is not reflected in this slogan. They found it difficult to identify themselves with this slogan. Class limitation that was inbuilt in the origin of the reproductive right movement is yet to be overcome.

Proclamation of the President Theodore Roosevelt that the "race purity must be maintained" while concluding his 1905 Lincoln Day Dinner is well known by now to the feminists. By 1906 he blatantly equated the falling birth rate among native born whites with their impending threat of "race-suicide". In the same year in his State of Union message Roosevelt warned the well-born white women who are engaged in "willful sterility -- the one sin for which the penalty is national death, race suicide". These were the years of accelerating racist ideologies and of great wave of race riots and lynchings; on the domestic scene and the imperialist venture of the US seizure of Philippines. "This episode of the race suicide was an additional factor in identifying feminism almost exclusively with the aspirations of the privileged women of the society" (Gordon 1976). The class nature of the movement has sharply been drawn into completion so to say in these years. On the other hand, "...the pro birth control feminists began to popularize the idea that poor people had a moral obligation to restrict the size of their families, because large families create a drain on the taxes and charity expenditures of the wealthy and because poor children were less likely to be "superior".

The upper class while women demanding reproductive right for themselves accepted the "race suicide" argument with all its racist prejudices and proposed its prevention by the introduction of the birth control among Black people. immigrants and the poor in general. Controlling the other races had been accepted as an antidote to the "race suicide". There is no question of extending the notion of "right" to the latter cases, it must remain a white privilege. The notion of reproductive right" had been cleanly cut out into a lily white complexion in the infancy of the demand. "In this way," Angela Davis says, "the prosperous whites of solid Yankee stock could maintain their superior numbers within the population".

Self expansion and accumulation of capital needs labour. As the demand for it increased in the first decades of the twentieth century the United States had to follow an open door policy to immigration. Anglo-Saxons who previously settled in the continent soon found their numbers decreasing and their birth rate declining. The privileged layers of the American society gave birth to a new racist trend known as eugenic movement. The premise of eugenicists was the catchword of their social-Darwinist predecessors, that is "survival of the fittest". The system of industrial capitalism is the "fittest" of all other systems because it survived. So is the "gifted" upper white layer of the American society. The eugenicists believed that the "unfit" or the indigent should be weeded out and the affluent, or "gifted," be encouraged to breed so that the human "stock" could be improved. The wedlock of racism with the powerful industrial capital was very clear from the beginning.

 

[Newton Bohr MD]

cont...
As the contradiction between capital and labor became stronger following the World War I, anti-labor sentiment grew in the upper class privileged white population. They were also scared of the socialist ideas developing among the working and underprivileged population which was being imported by the new immigrants from the Europe. Russian revolution of the 1917 also inspired progressive labor and social movements. Demands were raised to end open-door immigration and Southern states of United States were encouraged to pass laws prohibiting interracial marriage and blatant discrimination against the black.

So called scientific institutions to strengthen the eugenic movement were born and gained financial and moral support from the ruling class. These institutions vigorously researched to prove that the prolific childbearing and social unrest among immigrants and colonized people are evidences of their biological inferiority. In 1904 steel magnate Andrew Carnegie established the Station for Experimental Evolution in Washington, where the study of "hybridized" peoples" or racial mixtures could be performed. Eugenics Record Office endowed by the Harriman Dynasty started to publish authoritative journal such as Eugenic News. In 1913, on the eve of World War I, the Kellogg Family of Battle Creek, Michigan funded the well-known Race Betterment Foundation in order to lobby for policy of "national eugenics" (Mass 1976).

To give an example of the eugenic outcry let me quote from Lothrop Stoddard. Stoddard was a Professor at Harvard University and Director of the American Birth Control League. He was the one who wrote the rising tide of color against white world supremacy. In that book he warned of increased interbreeding of "pure" and "impure" races. The present quotation is being taken from his later book, "Revolt Against Civilisation: Menace of the Underman". In this book he was warning about the "dissatisfied" throughout Europe and Asia who challenge the rule of western civilization and were spreading communist ideas among the inhabitants of the United States. Stoddard writes:

"But what about the inferiors? Hitherto, we have not analyzed their attitude. We have seen that they are incapable of either creating or furthering civilization and are not mere negative factors in civilizing life, they are also positive - in an inverse, destructive sense. The inferior elements are, instinctively or consciously, the enemies not by chance, but because they are more or less uncivilized" (ibid).

We often forget that the race purity theories of Hitler were derived from the eugenic literatures and sources such as the American Journal of Heredity. In one direction these theories gave birth to Nazism and in another direction it had influence on birth control movement to retain the racist premises of its origin. It is no surprise that women like Margaret Sanger believed in "more children from the fit, less from the unfit, that is the chief issue of birth control". Its eugenic overtone is crystal clear.

Historians separate the life of Margaret Sanger in two phases. In the first phase she maintained affiliation with the socialist party, a phase sometimes glorified by her biographers. Although Bonnie Mass (ibid. p. 27) noted that she lacked clear identification with working class demands for political power and control over production and therefore she was more involved with non-class women's issues. In the second phase Sanger came up openly for eugenic and racist principles. She and her associates set up the American Birth Control League (ABCL) in 1921. As early as 1919 Sanger's birth control review published eugenicist arguments including the famous one "more children from the fit, less from the unfit, that is the chief issue of birth control". She warned in her book "The Pivot of Civilization", the illiterate degenerate masses might destroy our way of life. By 1932, she was calling for the sterilization or segregation by sex of "the whole disgenic (those who are suspected of being producers of unfit offspring) population". Due to the inherent similarity racist premises eventual amalgamation of eugenicists and the reproductive rights interest represented by women like Sanger were complete. Henry Pratt Fairchild, former President of the American Eugenic: Society said at the Annual meeting of the Birth Control Federation formerly the ABCL:

"One of the outstanding features of the present conference is the practically universal acceptance of the fact that these two great movements (eugenics and birth control) have now come to such a thorough understanding, and have drawn so close together as to be almost indistinguishable".

 

[Shredder]

eugenics is color blind. if it happens to target certain groups more than others, that is not one of its inherent features but a result of inherent differences between the groups. therefore cries of racism are not legitimate. the goal is to raise standards for all people, black white brown or yellow. its to raise standards for humans. anything that tampers with reproduction or the gene pool of a population will have either eugenic or dysgenic effects. the law of the jungle with brutal survival of the fittest ensures eugenic progress. the law of man with rampant welfare states and perverse incentives does not. eventually human populations will limit themselves by either misery or reproductive limits put in place by powers that be. the latter seems the preferable method.

 

[Daddydoc]

quixotic as premeds most of us have some understanding of genetics, and one of the most overlooked premises of demographic issues is that not all offspring are created equal. if you imagine a pool of racehorses and all of a sudden they decide to stop multiplying, the metaphor becomes clear. you probably wouldnt as just as happy to pluck some wild stallions from the field and throw them in the race with the same odds. adoption studies have shown that heredity has a markedly higher correlation to SES than the SES of adoptive parents. parenting ability is not as important as inherent capacities of children. highly gifted children end up creating their own opportunities to succeed--its the internal locus of control they have.

angelinas adoption choice is a tragedy. i hope she has biological children with brad, it would be a killer crossing over of genes. in contrast, her adopted child will never ascend the ranks to hollywood stardom. consider kate hudson. adoption in nature rarely (but not never, although this gets intricate) happens. its counter to evolutionary instinct--why invest so much in propagating foreign genes? as blunt and politically incorrect as it is, do you think if we set up a massive baby production and distribution center in zimbabwe or among the aborigines of australia and cease production elsewhere that humanity will be just as well off?

providing tax relief for the childless would be a catastrophe. all of the wealthiest and most genetically blessed members of society would slowly see their genes hit evolutionary dead ends. societies will see throngs of racehorses succumb to wild stallions, all because of poorly conceived incentive schemes. whipping stallions and feeding them science diet will only make them run so fast; racehorses will still triumph. same with rice rockets versus italian sports cars, unless you add a jet but thats cheating. a city that is overflowing with geo metros is different from one flooded with ferraris. lots of metaphorical but i hope you can decipher.

in summary, the world could easily support 10 billion efficient geniuses all living great lives, but 5 billion mediocre humans leads to many struggling for subsistence lifestyles. and that is why overpopulation is more than meets the eye

Paris Hilton is one example of racehorses triumphing, right? Well-born, priviliged children in our country always turn out well and succesful!

How many scientists and innovators have been the children of poor immigrants who had nothing?

 

[chef_NU]

Canada and Western Europe are in a situation of flat or negative population growth right now, and everybody there complains about it because the capitalist economic system DEPENDS on increasing population (i.e. expansion of markets) - and so this is a real economic threat..

???

I thought the real problem in Europe (and as the US increasingly jumps on the entitlement bandwagon) is that you need increasing population to fund your social safety net. A Socialist economic system depends on ever increasing population to pick up the tab for job protection and money for the old folks. A capitalist system, on the other hand, can work in any population circumstance...

I do agree with your main point though that opportunity for women correlates with decreasing population growth. It's difficult to distinguish, though, whether opportunity for women CAUSES slowed population growth, or whether it is simply a symptom of a modernized economy. And, of course, a modernized economy is correlated with lower birth rates.

 

[f_w]

A capitalist system, on the other hand, can work in any population circumstance...

Ok, so how exactly is your capitalist paradise going to work in the face of an mushroom shaped population histogram ? As we all know, economic growth can occur in a vacuum, there is no real need for actual industrial production or services to support economic growth, it just happens (if you cut taxes enough !).

And you are right, the old folks are going to live on the savings and real-estate they have accumulated during their productive life. No need for transfers from the younger folks.

 

[chef_NU]

A mushroom shaped popluation is bad news for everyone of course. However, I think you would be hard pressed to argue that a socialist system would handle it better than a capitalist system.

The problem with your "old folks" statement assumes that government somehow creates more wealth than there would otherwise be. Even if people work the same amount in both systems, the same amount of net wealth is generated, and the same amount of net wealth is consumed. In your case, government is simply there to discipline people who can't discipline themselves financially. I like the capitalist solution since we don't have to pay government to administrate wealth transfers, AND it carries significantly higher incentive for productive individuals to produce more.

 

[f_w]

I think you would be hard pressed to argue that a socialist system would handle it better than a capitalist system.

I didn't argue that. I am saying that both will collapse.

I am also saying that the US economy needs population growth which throughout its history has been mostly based on immigration (and faster reproducing 1st generation immigrants). The main driver in the US economy has allways been real-estate development. A lot of the 'wealth' generated in the US today comes out of turning wheat fields into subdivisions (or historically indian lands into railroad lands). And to develop land, you need people to buy it. This of course applies to other sectors of the economy. More people, more consumption, more production --> more wealth.

The problem with your "old folks" statement assumes that government somehow creates more wealth than there would otherwise be.

Nope, didn't say that.

I tried to poke fun at people like you who say: 'We don't need a system of transfers between generations if just everybody invests into enough stocks, bonds and real-estate so they can retire on the fruits of their own work without being a burden to society through mechanisms like SSI or medicare.'

The fallacy in that argument is that these people are still dependent on the younger folks to enjoy the fruits of their labor. If there is nobody to buy your home, to pay back the 30 year T-notes or to work at the company whose stocks you own, their value will trend towards 0 pretty soon. Retirement is a transfer between generations, in socialist AND capitalist systems.

I like the capitalist solution since we don't have to pay government to administrate wealth transfers,

Oh right. All the banks and brokers involved in the capitalist flavor of wealth transfer do this out of the goodness of their heart. (ever looked at administrative cost in the health insurance sector ? Compare medicare and the commercial insurers, it is really instructive)

Also, money 'paid to goverment' doesn't disappear into a big black hole. It returns into the economy through wages paid to goverment employees as well as investments made by the public sector. In that regard, there is no difference whether you pay your administrative expenses to a private entity or the goverment (and in a way, rather have my money spent on a unneccessary bridge to 'Nowhere, AK' than a sculpted ice David pi^^ing Stolichnaya).

 

[chef_NU]

F_w I'm not sure exactly what your point is here, but I'll do my best to respond to your post. Most of the time I am opposed to government power since many times government programs simply don't have any economic merit. If they did, there would be entrepreneurial incentive for the private sector to undertake such endeavors. And in the private sector, there is strong financial incentive to be efficient. Incentive to be efficient is nonexistent in government. Bottom line: for most things, the private sector simply handles them better. There are some instances where this is not true: i.e. national defense. Of course you will object: "what about the government agencies that provide public utility such as Medicare, Medicaid, social security, etc." Surely these programs have utility for some, but also are simply burdens for others. As I understand our constitution, government is there to provide protection of private property and to preserve certain rights to action. NOT rights to entitlement. This is where I believe government has gone astray.

In response to your "government is a means to transfer wealth to the next generation" statement: Am i missing something here? I don't see how wealth doesn't naturally concentrate itself in productive members of the economy. I agree that we need younger folks to "buy back our homes" when we are old, but why on earth do we need government for things like that?

In response to your broker comment: I believe that for the most part everyone does (and should) act on their own self interest. Never would I believe that someone in the financial sector is out to be a humanitarian. The problem is when the majority of the American publice speaks with a moral tongue but acts with a selfish hand. Let's stop deluding ourselves and face the facts. No difference whether you pay administrative expenses to a private entity or government? Wrong. If I don't think the administrative expenses of a private sector agency are being well spent, I can go somewhere else. If it's the government, I am coerced into accepting the law of the land.

 

[f_w]

My point is that the concept of 'retirement' caused by the fact of 'people getting old' requires a transfer of wealth from the younger generation to these now unproductive members of society. Socialist or capitalist, somehow the younger ones have to feed the older ones.

Capitalist society failed miserably at this task, not only in the US but also in other (then purely capitalist) parts of the world. To alleviate the unwanted societal consequence of impoverished old folk, societies decided to administer at least part of this required wealth transfer through goverment means.

For the most part, these systems have worked fairly well. They have managed to deal with world wars, economic downturns, economic upturns, socialist and conservative goverments. As long as there is a reasonable ratio of contributors to beneficiaries, these systems work. If this ratio starts to tilt (which became obvious in the 80s), the system needs tweaking through mechanisms like the SS trust fund and adjustments of expected benefits. The US is actually in a great position (at least compared with other countries facing the same issue). As long as there is economic growth, by being an attractive immigration country (based on economic opportunity and political freedom), it has no difficulty to 'pad' the age distribution if it wanted to. So, no SSI is not 'going bust'. It will need to adjust either its levy rate or its payout in about 25 years, but it is far from insolvency (of course, compared with ragingly successful private enterprise solutions like the Bethlehem or Chrysler retirement systems, SSI must clearly pale )

 

[trustwomen]

rather have my money spent on a unneccessary bridge to 'Nowhere, AK' than a sculpted ice David pi^^ing Stolichnaya).

 

[f_w]

trustwomen, even if we can't agree on the merits of various healthcare systems, at least we can laugh at the same joke.

 

[trustwomen]

trustwomen, even if we can't agree on the merits of various healthcare systems, at least we can laugh at the same joke.

I have a feeling we could even go out for a beer and get along fine, actually.

 

[mustangsally65]

Isn't infertility becoming more prevalent, though? Seems like I was reading a statisticthat from 6-10 % of American women of childbearing age have PCOS, which is one of the leading causes of infertility. Being overweight or obese can really interfere with the ability to conceive, and it doesn't look like Americans are going to be slimming down anytime soon.

I agree, though, the US isn't contributing as much as many other countries to the population problem. There are a lot of Hispanics in my state and since they're Catholic for the most part so they have a lot of children. It's kind of frustrating when I see them at the health department getting free or low-cost care when so many legal citizens have no health insurance.

Maybe education programs in other countries would help increase the use of contraception. In the end, though, people don't want to be told what to do and many will rebel against measures like the ones China has undertaken. There's no easy solution.

 

[trustwomen]

Isn't infertility becoming more prevalent, though? Seems like I was reading a statisticthat from 6-10 % of American women of childbearing age have PCOS, which is one of the leading causes of infertility. Being overweight or obese can really interfere with the ability to conceive, and it doesn't look like Americans are going to be slimming down anytime soon.

I agree, though, the US isn't contributing as much as many other countries to the population problem. There are a lot of Hispanics in my state and since they're Catholic for the most part so they have a lot of children. It's kind of frustrating when I see them at the health department getting free or low-cost care when so many legal citizens have no health insurance.

Maybe education programs in other countries would help increase the use of contraception. In the end, though, people don't want to be told what to do and many will rebel against measures like the ones China has undertaken. There's no easy solution.

Of course the situation is blurred because a little drop in the birth rate here will do SO much more good to the planet than a huge drop in the birth rate in the developing world - we consume so very much more...
I already gave my opinion on this one earlier on. Let's not risk getting caught up by "them vs. us" and focus on the liberation of women as our solution....

 

[Shredder]

Maybe education programs in other countries would help increase the use of contraception.

You'll end up targeting the most conscientious and intelligent people through education, and are those the genes whose propagation you want to halt? Assuming you don't subscribe to the blank slate theory.

Quality of populations is much more important than quantity. 1 billion new geniuses entering the world is a lot different than 1 billion imbeciles.

 

[f_w]

Just when I thought eugenics was dead.

 

[Shredder]

I've talked about it throughout the thread. Can you refute my quality vs quantity concept? Medical genetics is another word for eugenics. You can sweep the word under the rug, but you cannot sweep its reality. Humans cannot disregard genetics and evolution.

 

[f_w]

I've talked about it throughout the thread.

You regurgitated some 1920s pre-nazi eugenics propaganda. None of that stuff grew in your brain.

Can you refute my quality vs quantity concept?

Sure, quality would be better than quantity. Unfortunately, there is no scientific base to your assertion that you can breed a superior race by by procreating only 'pure' and intelligent individuals. I had hoped that this garbage found its demise with the end of the nazi empire.

Medical genetics is another word for eugenics.

Ahem, no.

Medical genetics is a science, eugenics is a discredited ideology.

You can sweep the word under the rug, but you cannot sweep its reality. Humans cannot disregard genetics and evolution.

Any potential effect of genetics and evolution on the development of societies is dwarfed by the influence of social factors within the society itself.

You are either just trying to provoke people with this stuff, or you just ignorant to the history of the propaganda you are trying to disseminate here.

 

[NonTradMed]

I've talked about it throughout the thread. Can you refute my quality vs quantity concept? Medical genetics is another word for eugenics. You can sweep the word under the rug, but you cannot sweep its reality. Humans cannot disregard genetics and evolution.

Well, if 'quality' people truly already ruled the world, there would be no social mobility since the 'quality' people would naturally gravitate to the top and stay there while those of 'less quality' would forever be at the bottom.

However, I'm not sure that happens. Certainly, the rich will be more likely to send their kids to better schools etc but there is also a environment quotient in the equation. Rich people have much more opportunities and confer upon their offspring an advantage in education, healthcare etc. And that in turn, begets another generation of upper classes. But as the above poster indicated, the Paris Hiltons of the world shows that generational wealth does not beget 'quality' people, it only seems to make people lazy when born into so much money. Environmental factors seem to play a large part in our motivation.

From what I learned from my population genetics class, evolutionary genetics only works on a large scale over a long, LONG period of time. This means even if we kill every single noncollege graduate in the world, the 'quality' of people will not necessarily immediately increase in value since our genes have such little variability (due to the human race having suffered a bottleneck a few thousand years ago or so) and because so much of where we end up in terms of education and income has to do with environmental factors and not inborn traits.

Of course, I'm pretty sure intelligence does enjoy an inherent genetic factor, but I think the current world doesn't allow those that are naturally smart to rise to the top. Therefore, by doing population control on the 'poor', you'd merely be taking away the genetic variablity of the human race, without showing much improvement in our 'stock'. Heh, since we were going by the stock horse analogy and all.....

 

[chef_NU]

Well, if 'quality' people truly already ruled the world, there would be no social mobility since the 'quality' people would naturally gravitate to the top and stay there while those of 'less quality' would forever be at the bottom.

However, I'm not sure that happens. Certainly, the rich will be more likely to send their kids to better schools etc but there is also a environment quotient in the equation. Rich people have much more opportunities and confer upon their offspring an advantage in education, healthcare etc. And that in turn, begets another generation of upper classes. But as the above poster indicated, the Paris Hiltons of the world shows that generational wealth does not beget 'quality' people, it only seems to make people lazy when born into so much money. Environmental factors seem to play a large part in our motivation.

From what I learned from my population genetics class, evolutionary genetics only works on a large scale over a long, LONG period of time. This means even if we kill every single noncollege graduate in the world, the 'quality' of people will not necessarily immediately increase in value since our genes have such little variability (due to the human race having suffered a bottleneck a few thousand years ago or so) and because so much of where we end up in terms of education and income has to do with environmental factors and not inborn traits.

Of course, I'm pretty sure intelligence does enjoy an inherent genetic factor, but I think the current world doesn't allow those that are naturally smart to rise to the top. Therefore, by doing population control on the 'poor', you'd merely be taking away the genetic variablity of the human race, without showing much improvement in our 'stock'. Heh, since we were going by the stock horse analogy and all.....

Actually I think Shredder's viewpoint does have some merit... pointing out the facts of population behavior doesn't mean that he is out to destroy freedom of less successful human beings. It just means that he has a desire to improve the world we are in and to recognize how genes influence that world. Nontradmed I would reconsider what you said about population genetics.

There is a very interesting book by the economist Stephen Levitt called Freakanomics (I recently read it). Anyway, this guys is most famous for discovering a link between the legalization of abortion and reduced crime rates. It was very controversial and heated when his paper came out, but to my knowledge no one has been able to refute his data/methods. Of course environmental factors surely play an enormously strong role in the subject here. Still, it'd be worth it to check it out:

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

 

[Shredder]

Yes, Levitt's study and others showing the validity of eugenics can actually produce data to support it. The opposition can only produce rhetoric about how important environment is (although studies disprove this). NonTradMed, my genetics lab also said this but I believe it was talking about Hardy Weinberg equation. It would take a long time to eliminate recessive alleles. But in the real world, all that matters is recessive phenotypes. And those can be eliminated much more readily. It's the foundation of Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Why else would PGD exist if not for eugenic reasons? Also amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling?

f_w you're rabid, let's not bother speaking with each other.

no social mobility since the 'quality' people would naturally gravitate to the top and stay there while those of 'less quality' would forever be at the bottom.

In large part this is true. You should also consider disparities between the third and first world and why they exist. Before environment comes up--one definition of intelligence is the ability to create a more favorable environment. Something to think about.

Chef, you should check out IQ and the Wealth of Nations

 

[f_w]

f_w you're rabid, let's not bother speaking with each other.

I don't agree with you, in fact, I find your regurgitation of 1920s eugenics ideology just offensive. Whether you like it or not, I will comment on it. Thousands of people have died, been subjected to forced sterilizations, castrations and medical experiments based on this pseudo-science, ad hominem attacks certainly won't silence me.

 

[trustwomen]

Stephen Levitt called Freakanomics (I recently read it). Anyway, this guys is most famous for discovering a link between the legalization of abortion and reduced crime rates. It was very controversial and heated when his paper came out, but to my knowledge no one has been able to refute his data/methods. Of course environmental factors surely play an enormously strong role in the subject here. [/url]

You just answered your own question. Unwanted children born to unfree women will probably have a lower quality of life. That has precisely nothing to do with genetics. You guys are not thinking along evolutionary time here. f_w is right.

As I stated before I would rather the human race die out while trying to do the right thing than survive because of inhuman and evil tactics.

 

[Vox Animo]

There are proven genetic components to intelligence. Recently scientists are coming closer and closer to honing in the genes that control it. In the next 50 years, i think technology will hit a point were we will be able to maximize genetic potential for intelligence in vitro, jump starting evolution. Whether or not this is right or wrong, I belief it is someting that will happen. I think its impractical to rely on the wealthy/intelligent to reproduce more for teh betterment of society. The Emperor Augustus complained about the same things 2000 years ago, the foreignors were taking over Rome. People that have everything are usually not as successful college wise as those who earn there way. Life is the adaption to stress, people don't seem to turn out right when they have no stress in their life.

But what are some thought on my former thought?

(Oh, how the posts digress.)

 

[trustwomen]

There are proven genetic components to intelligence. Recently scientists are coming closer and closer to honing in the genes that control it. In the next 50 years, i think technology will hit a point were we will be able to maximize genetic potential for intelligence in vitro, jump starting evolution. Whether or not this is right or wrong, I belief it is someting that will happen. I think its impractical to rely on the wealthy/intelligent to reproduce more for teh betterment of society. The Emperor Augustus complained about the same things 2000 years ago, the foreignors were taking over Rome. People that have everything are usually not as successful college wise as those who earn there way. Life is the adaption to stress, people don't seem to turn out right when they have no stress in their life.

But what are some thought on my former thought?

(Oh, how the posts digress.)

There is a genetic component to intelligence, but it is unrelated to the correlation between more abortion and decreased crime; my point was that being unwanted is probably a much greater (and more obvious) source of criminality than any "genetic selection", therefore the previous poster's idea was flawed.. I wasn't saying that intelligence has no genetic component, of course it does. I just happen to believe that education and environment, especially in early childhood, count for far more in someone's eventual "intelligence" (as measured by IQ) than does genetics.

Higher intelligence does not make "better humans". Most Mensa members are not out curing cancer or saving the world - they are ordinary folks. High intelligence is a trait that carries no moral status whatsoever - it can be used for good or for evil. What we call "intelligence" might even be responsible for the overpopulation problem in the first place - we found out how to cheat "natural selection" by cheating the kind of death that comes to most animals - through agriculture, sanitation, maternal & child health (esp. antiseptic childbirth), and treating injury and disease... what we are all striving to do, in the end. With our lower death rate must come a lower birth rate if we are to avoid overpopulation - and that isn't happening. A deadly pandemic (that kills faster and more efficiently than AIDS), or thermonuclear war, or massive natural disasters might help "cull us". Or, we can help bring it down ourselves - through measures like the ones we discussed before the thread digressed.

Your point about stress is interesting. I'll have to mull that over, prima facie it makes a whole lot of sense.

What former thought are you seeking comments on? Or have I posted too much on this thread already?

 

[Vox Animo]

There is a genetic component to intelligence, but it is unrelated to the correlation between more abortion and decreased crime; my point was that being unwanted is probably a much greater (and more obvious) source of criminality than any "genetic selection", therefore the previous poster's idea was flawed.. I wasn't saying that intelligence has no genetic component, of course it does. I just happen to believe that education and environment, especially in early childhood, count for far more in someone's eventual "intelligence" (as measured by IQ) than does genetics.

Higher intelligence does not make "better humans". Most Mensa members are not out curing cancer or saving the world - they are ordinary folks. High intelligence is a trait that carries no moral status whatsoever - it can be used for good or for evil. What we call "intelligence" might even be responsible for the overpopulation problem in the first place - we found out how to cheat "natural selection" by cheating the kind of death that comes to most animals - through agriculture, sanitation, maternal & child health (esp. antiseptic childbirth), and treating injury and disease... what we are all striving to do, in the end. With our lower death rate must come a lower birth rate if we are to avoid overpopulation - and that isn't happening. A deadly pandemic (that kills faster and more efficiently than AIDS), or thermonuclear war, or massive natural disasters might help "cull us". Or, we can help bring it down ourselves - through measures like the ones we discussed before the thread digressed.

Your point about stress is interesting. I'll have to mull that over, prima facie it makes a whole lot of sense.

What former thought are you seeking comments on? Or have I posted too much on this thread already?

First off I would like to say my post was not meant to refute what you said earlier, i actually agree with some of that, i simply meant to add some new discussion to this thread in general. MY former thought was looking for opinions on maximizing genetic intelligence in vitro. I agree with your comment on environmental factors contributing to intelligence early on in life. However (this is accoording to my embryo professor) there is a certain sequences of actions that occur involving genetically driven proteins early on in fetal developement that must happen in sequence for normal brain developement. If we could tweek these, we could maximize some ones potential, not necessary guarentee moral perfection at 30, but start them off with their best. I read about studies in the NIH right now that area monitoring certain cholestrol levels perinatally and studying their effect on intelligence.

Its interesing. With all the advances in technology and education we have made, the human condition is as prevalent as ever. Perhaps genetically altering of intellgence could be a passage a higher level of existance, a new species even. Of course the success of such an operation would render us all obsolete.

Once again i understand my constant digression, however on this thread people seem to have a diverse array of opinions, and most posts seem to be well thought out, i figure the topic will recieve better discussion here.

 

[trustwomen]

If we could tweek these, we could maximize some ones potential, not necessary guarentee moral perfection at 30, but start them off with their best. I read about studies in the NIH right now that area monitoring certain cholestrol levels perinatally and studying their effect on intelligence.

Its interesing. With all the advances in technology and education we have made, the human condition is as prevalent as ever. Perhaps genetically altering of intellgence could be a passage a higher level of existance, a new species even. Of course the success of such an operation would render us all obsolete.

.

Think about who could afford to do this "tweaking", then go read NonTradMed's great post from before. I just don't think it would make a huge difference.