/sci/ - Science & Math

>Is there a non emotional argument against eugenics?

There is no reliable way to asses future events both natural and unnatural, with a high statistical certainly as to allow us to take chances in altering a significant portion of the human population genome.

Taking morality out of the equation, if we fuck up we risk major loses because unlike plants humans can not be replaced quickly enough to operating capacity.

Also "traditional" eugenics is sloppy while genetic engineering is better. But both suffer the same flaw in that there is no good model to safely project future generations on. Maybe when quantum computing is a common thing and we can simulate ecosystems on a large scale will eugenics be viable but outside disease/handicap avoidance it's not right now.

From the information I read all this study deals with is proficiency with exams not proficiency in the actual subject.

Basically if you're good at one standardized test involving math, you're probably going to be good at doing a standardized test involving language and so on.

Which implies these genes aren't for academic success with in depth understanding in mind but academic success by proxy of understanding and manipulating the structure of the test/testing methods in on itself.

In other words you are proficient at taking tests if you have x,y,z genes. Which is something me and a slew of people in the shadows have been trying to point to for a while. What if IQ is based on a limited part of intelligence what if we are slowly getting get at is the ability to take test? It's not like we have any other method to prove this isn't the case.

When the only method utilized to analyzed intelligence or understanding of a subject matter is a fucking test or series of tests that culminates to 1/10,000 of the time it took you get through the entire course you're probably not getting the whole story about one's understanding of the subject matter at hand.