/sci/ - Science & Math

A non sequitur does not make a good argument.

Platypus.

Also, your ideas about IQ are wrong.

>>1714618
>forced high intelligence people to reproduce

I'VE GOT IT.
OP is a pretentious self-proclaimed "intelligent" person who wants to get laid.

if you aren't intelligent enough to survive idiots, you aren't very intelligent at all. wars are caused by idiots, and survived by the intelligent. a eugenics program wouldn't directly lead to increased intelligence, but the war between pro and anti eugenicists would.

There is no accurate way to measure intelligence. Also, here are too many disorders which can mask intelligence.

The principle of eugenics is very positive, but the technicalities make it challenging to push towards any time soon.

>>1714633
This person speaks the truth: http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq03.htm

Become more informed, OP

>>1714618

LOL

you really think intelligence is in your gene ?

Wake up boy...

By the way, if you want eugenic, you will be the FIRST victim.

Go out and kill an inferior. Just do it, don't think about it. By removing random inferiors from the gene pool, you're saving the world. The younger you get them, the less of a chance they have of reproducing or making bad decisions.

what about qualitative benefits to society, the people who care, or entertain, or set good examples of character?

>>1714661

Are you a troll?

Intelligence can be taught to young children, but there is a relevant genetic portion to it.

>>1714661

someone didnt have a smart daddy

People who think other people should be killed for no fault of their own are monsters and should be kept away from regular society.

You can all live on an island and practice objectivism like you want. Enjoy massacring each other like animals.

>>1714680
>support eugenics
>ignore obvious facts
>accuse people of trolling
1/10

Here's an idea. We all are competent enough to understand that intelligence (Assuming one doe snot have a mental disorder or physical debilitation) is propogated and nourised due to the environment we are raised in. Why do we not create artificial intelligences to raise our children to a large intellectual extent most people cannot provide, thus erradicating unintelligible ignorance. Though, this creates a functional problem. With most everyone participating in society, intelligent enough to pursue a higher level of education, who will run the base areas of infrastructure when most of civilization will become egotistical pseudo-intellectuals like OP?

Embryonic selection technology is only around the corner. Considering the centuries that lie ahead of us the eugencis debate is moot.

The cost of trying to implement eugenics now would be horrendous (I'm not just speaking financially). Just wait.....a glorious future post-darwinian future awaits the human race, we just need to get over this phase. It won't last long.

Goood pointOP

>>1714701

what this anon said

i think eugenics is a great idea when used
but when it comes to using it on people you have to remeber people are other human beings who the majority of the time want to live and have kids work a job they probly hate too buy shit they like

>>1714692

No, you're wrong.

You can't simply deny fundamental neuroscience and psychology because you're an emotional thinker. It is LARGELY trainable. The common viewpoint is that roughly 50% of intelligence can be taught through early childhood environment. The other 50% is genetics. It is very probably that the less intelligent will more often have inferior genes in regards to intellect. You can't just ignore that because you want to, you have to accept scientific data for what its worth.

>>1714680

Explain us how the neuronal network, experience, environment can be genetics.

Except in a decade or two, we'll be able to modify peoples genes after they're born, in uterus or before they are implant in vitro

Eugenics is so slow and evil, why not just fix the problems directly?

>>1714734
Are you an idiot? There is a genetic component to everything. Our genes are what give us our capacity to learn, our learning style (visual, auditory, etc.), how well we retain information, how we recall it, and so on.

Our experience and social environment shape us, but our genes provide the clay.

>>1714734

I apologize for not knowing the in depth technicalities, but it is common knowledge that there is a genetic portion. If you wish, look up ANY source. Depending on how archaic the information is, it may tell you that intelligent is anywhere from 50-90% genetics. 50% is the norm.

>>1714740

this, thread over

>>1714728
>>1714728
OP here. Good and evil are concepts. Nothing is truely "right" or "wrong."

>>1714618
>implying society isn't an amalgam of self interested individuals
>implying people don't take part in society because it suits them
>implying society won't tear itself apart if large numbers of individuals find their interests are no longer being served by society

>>1714740
>>1714740
>>1714740
OP here again. I meant to respond to this.

>>1714732
>deny basic neuroscience
Oh really?
>the common viewpoint
Oh really?
>50% genetics 50% environment
Oh really?

>>1714746
>> There is a genetic component to everything
>>1714751
>> it is common knowledge that there is a genetic portion

SO, Explain us where is the genetic portion of environment, of education.

Explain us how i can compensate a poor educational environment with mix two genius.

Please stop dream.

>>1714732
>"You can't simply deny fundamental neuroscience and psychology"
>"The common viewpoint is..."
>made-up numbers
This isn't science, this is quackery, and a flimsy justification for monstrosity. By your "logic", Nazis made great social scientists, and they were the biggest quacks of them all.

>Implying IQ is hereditary.
Even if it was, IQ is not actual intelligence, but rather the ability at which you interpret data, which still doesn't add to how smart you are.

Oh hey I was right. There is no good argument against eugenics.

>>1714778
Did you read my post? I told you the genetic portion of education. The method of learning is very important and is not caused by any environmental factors. Visual learners have an easier time storing information by seeing it done. Auditory learners have an easier time when someone tells them how it's done. Manipulatory learners learn best when they do it themselves.

As for your other point, you would have the two geniuses work out how the others learn and act as tutors. There.

Please learn proper English.

>>1714778

I've been getting trolled hard.

I apologize for embarrassing myself.

Who will be our janitors and construction workers, OP?

Have you already created the perfect robot to do all this? If not, you better have it ready soon to prove to you're a valuable member of society and that you deserve to live.

What would be the lowest IQ in your ideal society? James D. Watson has an IQ of 115. Should it be 110-115?

>>1714645
>There is no accurate way to measure intelligence. Also, here are too many disorders which can mask intelligence.

This.

>>1714789

I told you that there are ample amounts of sources online.

Is this some sort of odd coping mechanism? This denial? The fact that you won't even consider an opposing viewpoint bugs me the most.

why are people always so quick to deny that intelligence is genetic?

surely the genes that, you know, fucking code how to make the brain you think with, would have an effect on how that brain functions? maybe?

yeah education makes a difference and sure the liberals would be happy if everyone were born equal but that just isn't the case.

Maybe if we don't go by IQ, but by actual diseases.
Like culling babies, or aborting them, with Down Syndrome, autism, or other such mental handicaps.
And possibly physical handicaps if they're extreme.

Even if you do have a high IQ, if you spend all day sitting around, arguing on the internet like OP, then you're not doing anything with it, and so you're just as stupid.

Even if you have a low IQ, if you spend all day researching and working, like the rest of us, then you're doing something with it, and so you could be considered smart.

>>1714817

What would be the limit? Where would we draw the line?

Disorders like ADHD and latent schizophrenia are two genetic factors which often amplify creativity. Many of the greatest minds had physical and mental disorders.

>>1714759
Not many people, who have, by the way, evolved to be altruistic, would want to live in the type of society you're proposing.

Let's leave out "right and wrong, good and evil" and just say that this guy's post:

>>1714740

is more practical and doable than your shitty been-there-done-that eugenics idea.

>>1714817

autism doesn't present until early childhood and there has never been any specific genetic link found that they could test the baby for in vivo.

you CAN, however, voluntarily have it tested for down's syndrome and abort.

"Race and Intelligence is there a link?" from National Public Radio.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wocMCCrUjWE

>>1714793
>> Did you read my post? I told you the genetic portion of education. The method of learning is very important and is not caused by any environmental factors. Visual learners have an easier time storing information by seeing it done. Auditory learners have an easier time when someone tells them how it's done. Manipulatory learners learn best when they do it themselves.

Have you one idea about what are you talking ? Do you know how genetic works ? Please stop thinking like a farmer (yes a farmer).

>> Please learn proper English.

I know my english is not proper but you can understand me. If not, don't answer and gtfo ? ;)


>>1714794

No troll in /sci/ for me.

I am always waiting for the answer. Where is the portion of genetic in environment ?

Error. Our intelligence increases about 3 IQ points every decade. Google the Flynn Effect.

>>1714842
>>1714661
SHUT THE FUCK UP RETARD CAN"T CONSTRUCT A SENSIBLE SENTENCE GET OUT! GET OUT NOWWW!!!

Oh wait BBC "proves" that blacks are equal to whites by bringing up that regardless of the fact that any IQ test taken shows the same results of whites > blacks, that none of it means anything because you can't "100% measure intelligence."

thanks BBC.

There is no good argument for eugenics.

>>1714859

The Flynn Effect has halted due to nigger overpopulation.

>>1714850
I am not thinking like a farmer.

Genes code for the things I have described. These are properties of the physical matter of the brain which is created according to a person's genes and cannot be changed by experience.

>>1714869

>>SHUT THE FUCK UP RETARD CAN"T CONSTRUCT A SENSIBLE SENTENCE GET OUT! GET OUT NOWWW!!!

Is " shut up " enought sensible for you ?

>>Oh wait BBC "proves" that blacks are equal to whites by bringing up that regardless of the fact that any IQ test taken shows the same results of whites > blacks, that none of it means anything because you can't "100% measure intelligence."

You summarize the intelligence in the QI...

You are the living proof that without education, we are nothing...

>>1714759 is a response to >>1714740 ??

Straw man, attacking the good/evil comment, ignoring the far more important point that we will soon be able to correct/change the genetic code of living people/their offspring

>>1714824
Very good point.

I'm not seriously proposing this, but if we had to eliminate certain "inferior" genes (and there was, of course, a way to actually find these genes) it would be the people who are wasting their giftedness by doing nothing. I have a few friends with high IQs and they're doing absolutely nothing to contribute to society, if anything, they're parasites, whereas my one friend with a learning disability and average IQ is making something of themselves.

>>1714921
I should add people initially thought my friend just had a low IQ.

>>1714901

>> Genes code for the things I have described. These are properties of the physical matter of the brain which is created according to a person's genes and cannot be changed by experience.

The education is the key. No gene. The neuronal network is not innate characteristic.

>>1714936
>thought he had below average IQ
>turns out he's average IQ with learning disability

tomato, tamato.

>>1714958
More like apples and oranges.

>>1714948

You would agree that the neuronal structure of developed brains cannot be adversely changed?

At least as of yet, of course.

>>1714965

no because apples and oranges are different things.

if, say, I had to train someone at my work to do some random thing. whether he/she has a low iq, or has a learning disability that makes him/her take just as long to learn said thing as someone with a low IQ makes no fucking difference. I'd rather train someone else that doesn't suck.

>>1714661
>I don't understand natural selection therefore I'm right

All comments in this thread :

I think intelligence can't be measured because it would prove to myself that I really am an idiot.

Humanity already had a genetic bottleneck, forcing anotherone does not a good species make

>>1714976
You're implying that it would take just as long for my friend to learn and understand something as it would someone with a low IQ. He is a slow learner when it comes to subjects he's not interested in, but he eventually understands the concepts (not just remotely remembering facts) and he is full of innovative, brilliant ideas. Your comparison really is apples and oranges.

>>1714824
Yeah, IQ is one thing but character is as if not more important. We don't need sociopaths as we don't need lazy failure.

>>1714976
>no because apples and oranges are different things.
That was the point.

>if, say, I had to train someone at my work to do some random thing. whether he/she has a low iq, or has a learning disability that makes him/her take just as long to learn said thing as someone with a low IQ makes no fucking difference. I'd rather train someone else that doesn't suck.
At it's supposed most basic level, IQ is immutable; it cannot be altered or overcome. Learning disabilities can be overcome.

There would therefore be tasks you simply could not teach someone with a low IQ, but would be teachable with some effort and understanding to someone with a learning disability.

>>1715006

You think you actually know what you're talking about?

You realize IQ tests vary in what they measure and method used? You realize each creator thought THEIR test was the most valid? Each test usually has a correlation of only about 60-80%?

You realize there are many disorders that can mask intelligence as measured by timed performance on a task?

You realize that reasoning ability is strongly subjective to one's subconscious view upon themselves and their current psychological state?

I don't believe anybody ever said they were completely invalid, but they are inaccurate. This is abundantly clear.

>>1715017
It also amuses me to talk about IQ and learning disabilities as separate things.

Alfred Binet, the psychologist who came up with the first serviceable "intelligence test." which IQ tests were later based off of, intended it to be a diagnostic tool to diagnose children with learning disabilities so they could get proper help, and felt that measuring intelligence with such a thing as a number was, simply put, wrong.

>>1714970

I disagree

If you do not "train" your brain, you will be less effective.
The neuronal structure requires that an action is repeated many times and regularly to be strong and effective.


It is another proof of the acquired characteristic and not innate . The acquired can be lost. The innate, no.

>>1715029

Some learning disabilities will not reflect performance on an IQ test.

But that isn't fair, OP.

You are a mean douchebag.

Why don't we get rid of people who deserve it? Like all those crazy murders in prison?

And then help those who are stupid to become smart?

>>1714618
No, I wouldn't OP.

>>1714985

Please learn some genetic before hit me.

>>1715038

>implying empathy is a relevant attribute in the mind of a scientist

Pic related, it's what I imagine what you look like.

>>1715036
And I didn't say they would.

Modern IQ tests aren't designed to be diagnostic tools to find learning disabilities. They are tools to measure one conception of what "intelligence" is: a single, reified entity.

Binet's test was also not a modern IQ test anyway.

Natural selection made us smart, there's no reason it won't work anymore. One important condition for natural selection to work is there must be differences in traits for the individuals of a given population. If everyone was equal then we wouldn't have evolved intelligence.

Our modern society has imposed on us since day one that everyone is equal in natural ability and that through "hard work" we can achieve anything. This is of course a very pleasing idea but as in every pleasing ideas it quickly becomes the norm and the Crowd will lynch anybody who dares to question that idea (see this thread for many examples). This is a typical human behavior : we don't like the implications of an idea so we decide to suppress it the best we can.

So should we implement eugenics? I think that we should do it with success rather than intelligence alone. That way, not only we are weeding out the idiots but also the parasites, the unhealthy and other not so great people.

You really feel that way, OP?

Well stop being a pussy and go kill some low IQ people.

OP, if you think you are going to force anyone to reproduce.

You'll going to get blown to bits.

Nikola Tesla was celibate, if you think of forcing him, you would get a peace ray stuck up your ass.

You ain't forcing anyone to do anything you stuck up idiot.

>>1714618
OP... Why not kill everyone in the world then? If everyone is dead then no more can live, and therefore none more will die... You will be preventing any death int he future!! If people live though they will reproduce and there will be more death then if he didn't.
.
.
.

>>1715062

Do you believe in free will?

A lack of "motivation" is caused by either a poor psychological state or a deficiency in a particular area of the brain. it is very treatable.

>>1715045
Yeah, because a brain comes from nowhere each time a baby is formed.

>>1715062
>The bleeding hearts are ruining science.
Keep thinking that, buddy.

>>1715079

LEARN the main difference entre Brain and neuronal network ?

>>1715049
I don't think you know what a true scientist is.

I bet you still vote for presidents, I bet you don't think anything is wrong in the world, I bet you don't think the president is a puppet or the queen or whatever, I bet you are a sheep, just a lonely sheep who thinks he is better than everyone else.

You're a douchebag who will get destroyed either by nature or human.

>>1715085

What is your native tongue?

You're rather illiterate in English.

>>1715079
how is nothing formed

>>1715072
This logic is sound OP. If your goal is to prevent as much death as possible, destroying everything is the only answer.

Why is "intelligence" a desirable trait?

If you would be content by everyone being more intelligent, then why not skip a step and select for content-ness?

Rhinos seem to be pretty happy chillin out in the river and don't need to be smart to do that.

>>1715092

I am french (please no joke ;)

Ok, my english is really not perfect but I cannot apologize in every post for that.

I think that I can express myself well enough to be understood.

>>1715118
He is just full of himself.
Like most humans, they do not want simple lives filled with happiness and joy.

No, they must become the best and smartest, they must have everything, they don't care about anything other than them selfs.

This doesn't affect every human, but just most.

>>1715129

Yep, wanting to be the best is called evolution bro.

Those who don't aspire to better themselves are a plague to this species and should be ionised.

>>1715129
>>1715118

Don't be so damned single minded. If society generally became more intelligent, society would become more functional. All of the things that exist in the 1st world that support your well being have been founded upon higher cognition. Higher intelligence is directly correlated with reduced crime and more effective inhibitory control. Can you not see the positive implications of the human species enhancing its cognition?

>>1715134

Again, your underlying assumption is that intelligence is "good". Some basic tools protect us from predators, but beyond that it does not necessarily improve our lives.

Right, medicine and technology saves lives, but why select for that trait if the lives you save exist in torment knowing that it is all ultimately meaningless and life is an empty series of pains and desires that drive us to act and work, puppets of the laws of physics?

>>1715134
Is it hard only looking at the surface of issues and judging them off of said surface?

I mean, you see people acting in a way you think is lazy, you call them parasites, and say they should be eliminated for "evolution."

Despite your gross misunderstanding of evolution, you reject the possibility that these people could ever become motivated. Anything situational, environmental - anything that isn't determinist - seems to be thrown out as not relevant in your view.

>>1715134
Fuck evolution.

Who says you are the boss of me or anyone?

Even if it is real, then who gives a shit? We should be aiming at world wide happiness and enlightenment. Then we can finally be able to do whatever in a good way.

Imagine that happening and then we all join together and come up with technology to explore the galaxy.

Really, you evolutionists are the plague.

>>1715171

You're a complete buffoon. If you actually don't support scientific progression into cognitive enhancement, I view you as a tumor upon the human species. You would be directly harming the species by having a voice that may stunt its progression due to your deluded opinion.

Depression is not directly correlated with intelligence. You can still and often will have a feeling of purpose if you apply yourself. Psychological state is more defined by one's life experience than intelligence.

>>1715192
Damn dude, you are a fucking fascist.

But, you are not an issue, you could be killed in a blink of an eye, and no one would know or care.

I have a voice and I will say and do what the fuck I want, and no one will stop me, including you.

(not the guy you are replying to)

>>1715162
I see only the correlations you looked for and want me to see to back up your view.

More "intelligent" people also reproduce less. While people talk about overpopulation, think of what would happen if even 10% of the Earth's population were to die in a not-so-unlikely pandemic flu.

Now that 10% number doesn't sound big, but I can guarantee it would bring life in any First World nation to a grinding, catastrophic halt.

>>1715171

and to add to this, the smarter you are, the more aware you are of your inadequacies.

sage

op is a faggot

>>1715200
btw, Ivy League physics grad student here. With my intelligence come expectations from society (and my adviser). I hate myself.

>>1715196
>>1715197
>>1715200

I hate to say this, but I've never felt such a strong disagreement towards an idea or mentality. I'd rather become a fucking Christian rap artist than read any more of this.

This is a science and math board. Those who are interested in such topics are generally more rational. Is see nothing rational in your arguments. Cognitive enhancement is bound to happen and the sooner the better. You can stimulate ANY part of the brain and make it more efficient. You can promote emotional stability and empathy along with sharply enhanced reasoning. For whatever reason you actually believe this is a negative is far beyond me. I personally view it as a near "cure all" for the self-caused problems within humanity.

>>1715226
>Is see nothing rational in your arguments
>Is see

No wonder you want cognitive enhancement so bad.

Say we keep learning more and more and getting more and more logical and keep expanding intelligence. When will it end? What is the ultimate goal? Why is this desirable? WHAT IS THE POINT.

What enjoyability is there without any emotion? What desire is there in life? LOVE transcends logic. The most enjoyable life possible is a life full of nothing but love.

Accepting who you are and your existence for the purpose of LOVE. There is a creator and a divine purpose and meaning. Christ died while we were yet sinners. How can the radiance of love be expressed in full without the trials of life? Love is long suffering and able to overcome all.

1 Corinthians 1 : 18-25
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

What is the point of winning the race if there is no one to congratulate you? Why do we desire relationship with other people? Is this not the true meaning in life? There is a heavenly father whom is love.

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
- 1 Corinthians 10:31

>>1715226
>Is see nothing rational in your arguments
I mean, I can tell you why.

You're looking at the arguments of three separate people there, some of which aren't even entirely serious.

So it would make sense that you're confused.

>Cognitive enhancement
You know, if you'd been talking about actual cognitive enhancement, rather than eugenics, or at least made it clear that that was what you were doing, people might have actually listened to you.

>>1715241

Nice ad hominem. Read the rest of the paragraph. There is clearly nothing rational in their arguments. There is not a bit of anything aside form opinions. I actually was using statistics and data in order to create my arguments.

I will waste a fucking half hour of my time in order to find sources if need be.

>>1715241
Not the poster... but wow, you're desperate and obviously have little to contribute to this thread if you're focusing so much on a typo.

>>1715266

You realize I'm not OP and I see eugenics as impractical?

Say we keep learning more and more and getting more and more logical and keep expanding intelligence. When will it end? What is the ultimate goal? Why is this desirable? WHAT IS THE POINT.

What enjoyability is there without any emotion? What desire is there in life? LOVE transcends logic. The most enjoyable life possible is a life full of nothing but love.

Accepting who you are and your existence for the purpose of LOVE. There is a creator and a divine purpose and meaning. Christ died while we were yet sinners. How can the radiance of love be expressed in full without the trials of life? Love is long suffering and able to overcome all.

“Love is patient; love is kind and envies no one. Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude; never selfish, not quick to take offense. There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope, and endurance. In a word, there are three things that last forever: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of them all is love.” - Corinthians 13:4

What is the point of winning the race if there is no one to congratulate you? Why do we desire relationship with other people? Is this not the true meaning in life? There is a heavenly father whom is love.

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
- 1 Corinthians 10:31

>>1715259
I can quote the Bible to say what I want it to say, too!

>Proverbs 4:7
>Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

>>1715278

First time I've raged at someone who was obviously a troll. 5/10

Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
- Ernest Hemingway

(He an heroed)

>>1715277
I realized you're not OP, but statements like this make me really question your dedication to bettering humanity:

>Those who don't aspire to better themselves are a plague to this species and should be ionised.

(Unless that wasn't you.)

the solution is DNA trading. VOLUNTARY market based eugenics, where desirable DNA is traded and used for reproduction.

>>1715283
1 Corinthians 1 : 18-25
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

>>1715290

Haha, that wasn't me.

I have a somewhat similar viewpoint, but I'm not entirely sane either. I view them as parasites, but believe they can be changed by changing their brain.

>>1715283
Wisdom != Intellect

>>1714618

Well if you think about it there is no real argument about murder either. Both are subjective. You can say that murder is bad because it violates the most basic of human rights. But you personally might not give a shit about other people's lives.


But tbh. 99% of the people (including me) don't give a shit about societies mean IQ or science or whatever. We don't server Science. Science serves us.

Besides that's not how IQ and intelligence work and as far as I know the mean IQ is increasing not declining.

Wisdom and enlightenment and happiness > Intelligence

OP, I can tell you are not happy.

>>1714633
The thread was over with this.

Why is anyone still posting?

>>1715305


>AYYO SCIENCE BITCH BUT IT COOL TOO

As a geneticist, I am going to put a stop to this debate over whether intelligence is genetic or not. "Intelligence" is not genetic. "Capacity for intelligence" is not genetic, and overall "smarts" are certainly not genetic. What IS genetic is one's "appetite" (not aptitude, not capacity) for intelligence. In simpler words, it is a sort of window that they will fit into. Most people fill what appears to be an identical window, meaning that it will be a bit below average to a bit above average. Many windows are offset from each other though. However, this means that even if someone genetically could be very intelligent, they would still need a very stimulating environment to capitalize on their genetics. Most people born today have the ability to be quite intelligent, but they don't care enough. What would help more than eugenics is to get rid of the fog of anti-intellectualism that hovers over the world. This might mean keeping religion (though not offensive in and of itself, religion is the primary source of anti-intellectualism in the world) out of governments entirely, making science look more attractive in schools, offering scholarships for kids wanting to study a science in college, and raising girls from a young age to pursue careers in science and engineering, by giving them them the same toys that are tailored to today's young males (the reason we get more male engineers and scientists is that while we give boys transformers, legos, video games, etc. We give girls dolls. Boys are stimulated immediately while girls are not). What we need is a societal change OP, not a selective scientific one.

>>1715278

>Love

Actually I think you mean happiness. Love is not happiness and is not the only thing that make somebody happy.

But otherwise you are right. Every single action of ours is to make ourselves happier.

There is no end goal in Science or Technology itself. It all was created to better our life.

>>1715323
I think I'm going to go back to school and get an engineering degree sometime in the future. Being an accountant sucks.

>>1715339

Good for you. Your job requires great intelligence, but offers almost nothing to the world at large. Being an engineer would allow you to create things.

>>1715301
The problem with that is you're assuming that's the correct translation. There are several others which are quite different, and I can dig out the original Greek if you want to argue that.

>>1715292
If the Bible is an infallible authority, that is, it is never wrong, how can you use the Bible to contradict itself?

This makes no sense unless the Bible is *not* infallible.

>>1715323
This, 100%

OP if you don't fully agree with what this man said, you are hopeless.

>>1715323
Slightly off topic: Do you go to McGill?

>>1715323
But that would be hard.

Killing people and forcing them to fuck is much easier.

>>1714618

It's ironic because I believe OP would be one of the victims of his proposed social engineering plan.

Hawking was asked about his IQ in a 2004 newspaper interview, and replied, "I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.

OP you are a loser.

>Would you kill one to save a billion?

That depends who I know in the billion, and who the one is.

Faux-morality is worst morality. Put your child up against a random billion, and your child wins every time. Put a stranger as the one and your family in the billion, and the choice is equally clear.

As always, the answer is that things are more complicated depending on the situation than an oversimplified logic problem can be made to represent.

>>1715323
Right, try to teach a Bonobo calculus then tell me intelligence is not genetic.

let the free market determine what dna is valuable. you will find that dna from intelligent attractive healthy men will be in high demand.

we need an intelligent population to have a rational population. A population that respects human rights and private property. otherwise we will drift toward despotism and slavery and regress. and probably some sort of nuclear apocalypse.

>>1715356

I do not. Why?

CAPTCHA: IQ's minnity

>>1715347
>Implying proverbs was written in Greek. Fucking heathens.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2451&t=KJV

chokmah

1) wisdom
a) skill (in war)
b) wisdom (in administration)
c) shrewdness, wisdom
d) wisdom, prudence (in religious affairs)
e) wisdom (ethical and religious)

>>1715346
Exactly. It's stressful and empty. I'm only in my mid-20s, so I don't think it's too late for me to make a change. I'm not trying to get a PhD or anything crazy, I just want a job I can be proud of.

>>1715373
Your post reminded me of someone I know and I was hoping you were him.

>>1715371

Intelligence is not factored into finding a mate these days, on fortunately. Not on average, at least. That is why you really will find many more unintelligent people with enormous families than intelligent people with more than two children.

>>1715370
>try to teach a Bonobo calculus

You should just kill yourself.

You are a huge hypocrite.

>>1715331
Which is greater?

A new toy, or
Warm embrace from a parent?

Which will satisfy? Does buying material goods produce lasting happiness?

>>1715385

>on fortunately

What a strange typo. I meant unfortunately, of course.

>>1715370
It would have mainly nothing to do with intelligence.

Teaching calculus requires some sort of faculty for language. Bonobo's faculty for language is not the same as humans. You can't teach bonobo's calculus because they have an entirely different langauge faculty.

I see nothing here about intelligence or genetics, aside from whatever claims you might want to make about language, which would be tenuous at best.

>>1715391
huh?

>>1715376
Uh, no, I was saying 1 Corinthians was in Greek.

I posted proverbs as a contradiction to the first passage from 1 Corinthians. Someone used another passage from 1 Corinthians to contradict that.

Of course Proverbs was in Hebrew. How stupid do you think people are?

>>1714618
OP'S A FAGGOT:
http://xkcd.com/603/

>>1715393
This is why Christians hold so strongly to the family. In the bible marriage was the first establishment.

The family is a reflection of the love of God. We were created in "our image" (the communion of the trinity).

This is why we are called adopted sons of God, and language like Father and Son are used to describe the person of God.

>>1715408
Mind-bogglingly stupid.

>>1715396

There is too much empirical data that implies there is a relevant genetic factor. There are genetic differences in intelligence among species due to their varied genetics. There are varied genetics based upon ancestry and gender. One could deduct that these genetic differences would also apply to intelligence.

>>1715385

I'm not talking about 'finding a mate' I'm talking about going to a sperm bank and buying some sperm. or fidning some random guy and buying his sperm. if I was a woman I'd have a checklist of stuff.

FERAL BREEDING MUST END. WE HAVE MINDS. should not go through these animal breeding rituals to produce offspring. It should all be done clinically and rationally, selecting positive traits to keep civilization moving.

>>1715396
I swear I am not a troll, I really am just uneducated/possibly retarded:

What is intelligence if language is not a part of it? What makes a human intelligent but not a bonobo (or are you suggesting they have a different intelligence)?

This thread needs a candlejack.

HOLY SHIT! Nothing happ

>>1715385

I'm not talking about 'finding a mate,' I'm talking about going to a sperm bank and buying some sperm. Or finding some guy in person and buying his sperm. If I was a woman I'd have a checklist of stuff to look for, intelligence and talent health and aesthetics being high on the list.

FERAL BREEDING MUST END. We have minds, we should use them, instea of relying on bodily impulses to giud our behavior.

We should not go through these animal breeding rituals to produce offspring. It should all be done clinically and rationally, selecting positive traits to keep civilization moving.

>>1715442

Not the guy you're replying to, but language is not intelligence, language is genetic. We are also more intelligent than bonobos, genetically. As I replied to some people earlier, one's "appetite" for intelligence is genetic, not environmental.

>>1715455
You sound like a manwhore and if you were a women a whore.

>>1715385

I'm not talking about 'finding a mate,' I'm talking about going to a sperm bank and buying some sperm. Or finding some guy in person and buying his sperm. If I was a woman I'd have a checklist of stuff to look for, intelligence, talent, health and aesthetics being high on the list.

FERAL BREEDING MUST END. We have minds, we should use them, instead of relying on bodily impulses to guide our behavior.

We should not go through these animal breeding rituals to produce offspring. It should all be done clinically and rationally, selecting positive traits to keep civilization moving.

>>1715460
wtf does that mean? you mean we're no smarter than bonobos out of the womb, but we just want it more?

>>1715442
All that I'm saying is that it is inappropriate to make this kind of comparison ("Monkeys are dumb because they can't build spaceships") about across populations (in our case, across separate genera).

I'm making no claim about any possible relatedness of intelligence and language.

of course there is absolutely no genetic component to intelligence. this is why people just as often have a similar level of intelligence to completely unrelated animals as they do to their own species. oh wait they don't.

as it happens we're pretty close to the maximum limit of brain functionality anyway. distance between neurons etc.

>>1715467

Did you read what I posted? I think not. We will always be naturally more intelligent than the bonobo, because our "windows of intelligence" are set higher. I was simply trying to hint that intelligence is genetic.

>>1715487

>disregard social contract, ethics
>continue pushing towards goals, wants

you're essentially saying what you want is good because you're a marginally more intelligent monkey than some other monkey, and because of this we should kill a load more monkeys.

>>1715460
Thank you for answering my post.

The reason I asked the question is because I thought the other poster was saying intelligence is not genetic (maybe meant not completely genetic?), and that to me was unfathomable.

I'm still still confused because I always thought the ability for language was a part of intelligence. I will, of course, be looking this up later... but if you don't mind, could you explain to me what intelligence is? How do you know it when you see it? Tool making? Language (you're saying no to this)? Reasoning?

I apologize if I'm yet again misconstruing your post.

>mfw most of the people advocating euthanasia of people with low IQs would themselves be euthanized under such a plan due to their nonexistent social skills and ability to assimilate into society

>>1715503

You don't believe there are varying "windows of intelligence" between humans caused by genetics?

Why not make self learning robots who have higher intellectual capabilities then humans? Then we can destroy humans and let them achieve advancement in intellect since that is the only motivation we have apparently...

>>1715541
everything thinks eugenics = genocide. it doesn't. you can have free market based eugenics that is completely voluntary and peaceful...

>>1715539
Yes... I did misread what the other poster was saying.

It's time for me to go to bed.

>>1715541
everyone thinks eugenics = genocide. it doesn't. you can have free market based eugenics that is completely voluntary and peaceful...

>>1715562
And people would still oppose it.

Why would a socialist, for instance, ever support a free market system that has to do with human reproduction? It would be an entirely unthinkable, and utterly unjust system to them.

Eugenics dug it's own grave a long time ago. People don't seem to realize this.

>>1715503
well, not carefully enough, but I was replying to the "geneticists" claim that intelligence is not genetic but "appetite" is. Geneticists are brainwashed and indoctrinated through their "education" into thinking intelligence is not genetic, when it can in fact be simply refuted by looking cross-species. The reason is obvious - if you concede that then eugenics is the natural consequence, and Hitler fucked that up for all of us reasonable eugenicists.

OP assumes intelligence is purely genetic, lol

>>1715539

Intelligence is difficult to measure, and I think this is a question for psychologists and philosophers, but I would say as a geneticist that it is measured by our ability to respond to a wide variety of stimuli. That is, when new challenges, sensations or threats present themselves, our response to them is the measure of our intelligence.

>>1715545

Of course I believe in genetic variation between humans, but few humans will have intelligence on the level of a bonobo.

>>1715579

You are either trolling or not very bright. You should read my earlier posts more carefully before refuting them. Any child can be born with an immense "appetite" for intelligence, and then be raised to be a simpleton. It is undeniably partly environmental. To deny that is similar to walking around blindfolded.

>>1715665
are you fucking retarded?

Your original post:
>>1715323
>As a geneticist, I am going to put a stop to this debate over whether intelligence is genetic or not. "Intelligence" is not genetic. "Capacity for intelligence" is not genetic, and overall "smarts" are certainly not genetic. What IS genetic is one's "appetite" (not aptitude, not capacity) for intelligence

OH WAIT, I HAVE THE ANSWER: BETTER PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SOCIAL RESOURCES.

Also, we need some dumb-dumbs to take out our trash and flip our burgers.

However, retards need to be bred out of society. They are of no use and are a strain on the system. Breeding needs to be banned for individuals with a high genetic prob of producing a tard.

>>1715671

...and nobody has denyied that environment plays a part. the point is that there IS genetic variation over which selection can work. Moran

>>1715671

I'm sorry, but you're only making yourself look like an ass. There is no contradictory information between my posts. I still maintain that "appetite" for intelligence is genetic, however the other components that we use to measure intelligence are environmental. While intelligence is largely genetic, it is ludicrous to say that one's intellect is purely decided by one's genes. As I said before, a child with the ability to be a genius could be raised to be a moron. I still don't think you've read anything that I posted in this thread. If you have, I think the real question is whether or not you can actually read, and if so in what language.

>>1715696
read this, faggot.
>>1715689

are you still claiming that " 'capacity for intelligence' is not genetic"?

Developmental psychologist here!

Any metric we use for "intelligence" is arbitrary. Traditional IQ tests, standardized exams (SAT, GRE), and almost anything else you mention has questionable validity, because intelligence is a subjective construct. Some people recognize different types of intelligence, some just look at book smarts and traditional nerdiness.

Any way you slice it, what we consider to be intelligence, creativity, or "smartitude" is the result of co-occuring dynamic interactions accross all levels of the organism, top down, bottom up, genes to environment, behavior to protiens. No one level can be held responsible for intellect. What we should do is concentrate on changing the levels that we can. Effectively increasing affordances on a large scale, such as the public school system (thinking U.S.).

There always needs to be a bell curve, otherwise society will destruct.

>>1715713

Well, yes. I don't see any reason to admit defeat on my point when all you've been doing is angrily ranting over things that you are ill-informed about and have made no effort to understand. You're not making very much progress in proving to me that you've read ANY of the posts in this thread, let alone my own posts. Let me remind you, for the sake of clarity, that we are talking about human genetics here. There is a certain capacity for intelligence that is uniquely genetic to us, in comparison with other animals. However, you seem to be forgetting that we are all written from small variations on the same code. The "coding" for intelligence merely define one's appetite for intelligence. The "capacity gene" for comparison with other humans that you're describing is fictional. I am making a heavy, though not entirely baseless, accusation here when I say that you have not graduated high school, because people of your temperament do not survive well in college, and you have obviously only taken the most basic of biology classes, if any at all.

>>1715665
>Any child can be born with an immense "appetite" for intelligence, and then be raised to be a simpleton.

Are intelligence and knowledge the same thing? I have an insatiable appetite for natural and how things work despite being raised by two uneducated parents. I was for many years uneducated and eventually started teaching myself in my early twenties. The entire time I was learning the fundamentals of many subjects, many people told me I was intelligent but uneducated.

I'm just confused... how someone could be born with that "appetite" and end up a simpleton? I came from a shitty background with little to no opportunities for an education and yet I ended up being a very curious person.

I'm not saying I disagree with what you're saying or that you're wrong (I do think intelligence is part genetic and part environmental)... but that part of your post stands out to me because it describes my own experience growing up.

inb4 someone suggests I'm a simpleton and I don't realize it. I actually fret about this a lot.

>>1715741
>appetite for natural

Damnit. I meant to type "knowledge", not "natural".

>>1715738
Who started the ad hominems?
>you are... not very bright

Ever hear of Sphingolipid disorders in Ashkenazi Jews that increase interconnectedness between brain cells? To think that most of the greatest physicists being Jewish is purely an "environmental" thing is deluding yourself.

>>1715741

These are incredibly broad terms I am using. "Appetite" is certainly not the best word I could have used, but it is the best approximation that I could think of on the spot, and also one that I have heard from several scientists before (off the top of my head, see: Matt Ridley). My use of the word "appetite" was not meant to mean "drive" for intelligence, merely "window inside of which one's intelligence will fit, adhering to the rule that is the limits of the window itself." You obviously had a great DRIVE to learn, and "appetite" is a good word to use in that context too, but my use of the word "appetite" was meant a bit differently. Like I said, very broad terms are being thrown around here, which is why genetic debates are always the most mind-numbing. I hope that cleared it up a bit. Keep in mind that "appetite" and "capacity" are similar, but different.

>>1714618
What if I responded "no" to the first question?

>>1715768

I see now that it is not that you are not reading my posts, simply that you are merely skimming over them and misinterpreting them. I have left some information to be easily misinterpreted in this thread, and I apologize. However, you are stumbling over the smallest of pebbles here, and it is no longer worth my time to reply to you. I have explained repeatedly why the information you just brought to the table is not related to this discussion, and yet you still continue to blunder about blindly in this thread. I will end my responses to you with some recommended reading material:

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

That is by no means comprehensive (nor is it likely to be correct in its entirety), but it should get you started, and since you possess no information on this topic at the moment, that seems to be the best direction to go.

>>1715769
Ah, I hate when people end up arguing semantics and I apologize for doing that in my post. It was not my intention. Thank you for taking the time to clarify what you meant.

I'm assuming you're the geneticist in this thread. If you don't mind, can you recommend me some books? Would Nature vs. Nuture by Matt Ridley be a good place to start?

>>1715789

Yes, Matt Ridley is great. I also highly recommend "Genome," also by Matt Ridley. It's fairly light reading on the human genome, but it's fascinating.

The idea of eugenics doesn't consider the fact that, when and if we actually all become geniuses, what happens when we have all this manual labour to be done, and there's no idiots/robots to do it for us?

>>1715278
listen up dipshit. Some people prefer intellectual stimulation.

Some people prefer sexual stimulation.

Some people prefer drugs.

Some people prefer violence and pain.

The problem is that many intellectuals are being starved of their only means of gratification because they're surrounded by shitty, stupid people. They get angry and come on here and rant about it. Leave them to their fucking business and don't write them death threats because of it.

>>1715285
good point i only read the first line. hey "love/hippy/bible quote" guy please disregard the first sentence in this: >>1715836

GAWD!! it is not Nature v Nurture!!!! It's the interaction between everything!!!!!

Check out some books and articles on epigenetics and ontology. The develoment of species typical behaviors (do a journal article search) is also good for understanding how the interplay between levels is important for behaviors once innaccurately deemed as purely genetic.

I'm not the genetics dude, but I can suggest readings from D. Noble and V.S. Ramachandran. S. Pinker is ok, but he's a little deterministic for my taste, always good to read both sides though.

>>1715769
oh please clarify what the difference between "appetite" and "capacity" are.

Do we and cocker spaniels have different "appetite" for intelligence?

Do we and cocker spaniels have different "capacity" for intelligence?

>>1715870

I'm breaking my own self-imposed rule and replying to you just this one last time. We have a different capacity for intelligence than cocker spaniels. You and I have a different "appetite" (guess who has a greater "appetite" here). This is neither difficult to conceive of nor revolutionary, and it is fairly common knowledge among anyone with a rudimentary biology education. Please read that Wikipedia article. You need it.

"I have the right to live"

There is no argument sufficiently powerful against that statement in most cases, OP.

>>1715849
Is your Nature Vs. Nurture comment directed at me:

>>1715789

because I mentioned the title of Matt Ridley's book (I forgot it's been renamed The Agile Gene: How Nature Turns on Nurture)?

Anyway, I am interested in whatever you have to suggest. I've been meaning to read books by Steven Pinker and V.S. Ramachandran, so if you a specific book in mind by these authors I would very much appreciate it.

>>1715895

That's what emotional thinkers will have you believe, OP.

Ignore this hollow circular argument.

>>1715886
not the same poster, but i am having a difficult time understanding some of your posts because english is not my first language. can you define one more time your use of the word "appetite"? is "appetite" the window you're talking about or is "capacity" the window? what is the difference?

>>1715924

They're similar. The "window" I'm talking about is somewhat stretchy in terms of the borders when it comes to appetite, while capacity implies rigid barriers. One's appetite is absolute, and has to do with remembering and memorizing, relying on brain chemistry to explain it. "Capacity" is magical and miraculous, and is totally baseless. It is to imply that you and I are not equal, no matter how hard I work. Think of it like this: "Capacity" is rigid, absolute ability, "appetite" is potential that will rarely be maxed out or bottomed out.

>>1715788
>>1715886

Ha, what a condescending poser.

Ad hominem - ever hear of it? Repeating "you're not very bright", "you know nothing of the topic" is not making any points, only stroking your (oblivious) ego. I say this, because hilariously you have no idea where I'm at educationally, though not a geneticist, so I seriously suggest you drop your childish attempt at arguing from authority.

There seems to be strong evidence that positive eugentics put the Ashkenazi Jewish population where they are today - dominating academia, media, banking, and the most powerful outposts in American society. There is evidence for a genetic component over which selection occurs. That seems to be a strong argument for eugenics, something which you argued against.

You still have not clarified what you meant that "capacity for intelligence is not genetic".

Who has the higher "appetite"? It appear me, since I'm asking the questions and for clarification while you are attempting to argue pompously from authority instead of answering any points clearly.

>>1715933
just to test my understanding here, not to annoy you further, but would you agree with this statement?:

a person with a below average IQ score can compensate for this by being a very hard worker and thus, equalize the playing field filled with people with higher IQs?

>>1715939
Those were not ad hominem arguments. If you had read what that guy wrote, he was saying that since you aren't even on the same page as him in terms of what you two were arguing about, it wasn't even worth trying to argue with you.

If he had said "You're a dumbass, thus your argument must be wrong," that would be an ad hominem. But that's not what the guy did.

>>1715939

I never denied using ad hominem attacks on your character, because I was aware that I was using them. The reason that I'm using them is that you are being indignant and hostile, and yet you still have revealed no hidden knowledge of the subject at hand, and yet you think that your *opinions* are valid in this discussion. I have already explained to you why they are not. That is what I consider to be an example of an overgrown ego; insistence on being correct even in discussions about things you know absolutely nothing about. Statements such as "there is evidence" hold no water in any argument outside of /b/, /x/, or high school lunchrooms, and while I'm sorry to have to inform you of that, I would ask that you abide by it. Not only that, but you still bring up information that I already pointed out as irrelevant, because it is based around a very small number of people, who have still had plenty of exposure to "impure" genetics. The reason Jews hold positions in money and science is obviously and well understood to be cultural, and that would be a simple concept to anyone who knew anything about Judaism, which is exactly why I'm not going to explain it to you, so go don't demanding that I do so. I have already explained the concept of capacity and appetite to you and everyone else in this thread. I'm sorry you can't keep up, but don't throw a tantrum at me because you can't read a single post comprehensively.

>>1715951
i meant to ask after this post: is that what you mean by "appetite"?

ok... just read another post by you again and i see you're using "capacity" for different species and "appetite" for the same species. i didn't catch that the first time.

ITT: OP Makes a Modest Proposal that would make Jonathan Swift proud.

>>1716006

You also assume that I'm being pompous, when really I'm just getting very tired of talking down to you, because while you probably know a great deal of things I don't, you are ignorant when it comes to this topic, and I am not. When someone is besting you in an argument and reprimanding you for being a jackass, that's not pompousness, that is legitimate criticism of your asinine behavior. Now please, let it go. I am going to go to bed, because unlike you, I have a job in a lab that I need to wake up early for tomorrow morning. I hope that I've helped you in some way, although you seem to be beyond help, and gleefully so.

>>1715951

Essentially, yes, though it's all very vague because our language is not as specific as the 4-letter code that is used in our DNA. Goodnight.

>>1716023
just wanted to thank you for your posts and let you know you weren't wasting your time even responding to that guy because i got a lot from the discussion between the both of you.

goodnight. and once again, thankyou.

>>1716014
Haha, pretentious little boy, I do have a job at a lab. I do computational physics. My adviser just returned, so I'm making some plots for tomorrow while I ask questions about shit I don't study.

Here's the laser intensity in an experiment we've been simulating, sweetheart.

>>1716101

>computational physics

>>1716109
Yeah, it's a field of study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_physics

>>1716116

>deletes his post because he's an insecure faggot

>>1716125
And rather quickly too. Haha...

history

>>1716125
because i've got nothing to prove, he's the pompous one that took offense to questioning his conclusions. That's how science works and that's how you learn things - you ask questions instead of saying "I'm a geneticist, you don't know what you're talking about"

>>1716135

pretty sure he did explain most things clearly, though he was a little unclear on his vocabulary at first, but he got there eventually. You were just being stupid, bro.

>>1716150
Agreed. I asked him some questions in this thread and he clarified his posts politely and to the best of his ability.

His last description of "capacity" consisted of:
>"Capacity" is magical and miraculous, and is totally baseless.
If I'm to take the interpretation of:
>>1716009
>i see you're using "capacity" for different species and "appetite" for the same species.
Then then the definition is arbitrary and his conclusion is circular.

>>1714635
I'm beginning to think there will be no forced mating at all :/

If we found a gene for rape or anti-social behavior (haha, just go with me here) in an otherwise very intelligent individual, OP, would you consider this person more valuable to society than someone with a slightly below average IQ? If you're hoping for the betterment of society, why are you emphasizing so much on intelligence and not other bad traits?

>>1714618
IQ doesn't necessarily mean that the person is highly intelligence as an IQ test only tests one form of intelligence.

Also, I like art.

Many artists would probably be killed as they tend to be, pardon my generalization, less academically intelligent (do not have high IQ's) and more creatively intelligent.

lrn2psychology

Here's the solution: how about we all split into separate groups based on what "traits" we have, like we wear armbands or something, that way the government can protect some of us and we can select for whichever traits we deem desirable.

>>1714921

think about it this way

perhaps your friends who are smart realize that we're animals and we have to fight to survive, so they figure that there is nothing more important in life than looking out for number one

how do they do that? by doing the least amount of work possible and still being able to pass on their genes

if you can live parasitically with little to no effort on your part, why not?

by going out and busting their asses to make a living, your other friends truly are retards

>>1716257
One of them doesn't want children, the other isn't attractive to the type of women he's attracted to because he has no ambition or passion. They're not playing the game well enough to propagate their genes, so what does that mean?

>>1716246
>like we wear armbands or something

err like that sounds like an idea they had back in the 1940s.

it didn't end well

>If we annually killed off everyone with lower IQ's and forced high intelligence people to reproduce ...

we would have a fuckton of autistic dipshits running around requiring super expensive care

I'm not making it up, all the evidence suggests this

>>1716257

By the way, you point is still moot because what would be the point in OP doing all this if it ends with people who aren't willing to advance science and technology and better society?

stupid people don't have to die they just can't reproduce. if anyone's read "Ringworld" by Lary Niven, then you'll know what I mean when I say we need a birthright system. OK book too

>>1716334

you're still not understanding

the smart people are only able to be parasites because there exists dumb people who allow themselves to be taken advantage of by parasites

>>1716381
Ah, I do see your point now. That's assuming my friends would actually contribute to society after OP's perfect ideal society exists, otherwise my friends are going to be naturally weeded out at that point. It's a win/win.

>implying all intelligent people are benevolent and never use their knowledge for personal gain at the expense of everyone else
>implying OP is a naive liberal who has no problem giving these people more control on humanity

>>1716412
Who are you replying to?

>>1714618
Tyranny.