OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 09:47:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: St. Jude's Hospital and stem cell processing  (Read 9851 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2008, 04:41:38 AM »

You most certainly do, intelligence is passed on regardless of the grades you got in school. You're probably the right person to have more children...hopefully to offset the genetic damage being done to the human race by those with IQ's below 100 who insist on procreating to the detriment of us all.

Now as to whether or not you should be rasing your children, that's a different question. Grin j/k Wink

Ah, but the majority of people would see that I have a .05 GPA and assume I am an idiot.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2008, 04:43:48 AM »

I am well aware that Hitler did some good things for his country. He couldn't have risen thru the ranks of goverment unless he did.

He didn't really 'rise through the ranks', per se, but that's another issue.

Quote
But that doesn't negate the damage he did. When we draw lines of value they often keep moving. So that no one is valuable and everyone is expendable.

To a degree, everyone has an economic value that can be attached to them, likewise they have a genetic value that can be attached to them; and to one degree or another, everyone is expendable.

Quote
You can give your child an IQ test as early as the age of 4. There are some private schools up here that don't allow children into the school unless they score at least a 125, but preferance is given to those with an IQ above 135.

I would like to see you try and have your 4 year old sterilized Roll Eyes (truly I wouldn't, but your rhetoric is easy to spout when you don't have children.)

Oh, I probably wouldn't be able to, I would want to sterilize one person just because they had the misfortunte of being related to me; furthermore, the sterilization of a single individual is highly unlikly to have any impact on the genetics of the human race and thus would be pointless. The sterilization of millions based on inferior intelligence, however, could have a profound impact to the betterment of the human race. But the policy only works if applied en masse.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #47 on: January 07, 2008, 04:45:33 AM »

Ah, but the majority of people would see that I have a .05 GPA and assume I am an idiot.

And that's why we'd use IQ tests instead of popular assumptions. The goal is to measure actual intelligence, which we are relatively certain is at least substantially influenced by genetics, rather than various measure of success which can be influenced as much by culture and psychology as genetics.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2008, 04:46:09 AM »

It has actually been proven that only 60% of IQ has to do with gentics, the rest is enviromental factors. So a child born to two parents with IQ's in the 140's could have an IQ of 140 at birth in theory and an IQ of 100 as an adult if they have poor parents/enviroment. And two parents with an IQ of 70 each could have a child with an IQ of 70 at birth and and IQ of 140 as an adult given the right enviroment and parents. Parenting has little to do with having a high IQ.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 04:49:00 AM by Quinault » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2008, 04:47:12 AM »

I think you'd be hard pressed to show that eliminating people with low IQs would actually benefit society.  Why is every single heavily industrialized nation importing uneducated and unskilled labour en masse? 
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2008, 04:48:36 AM »

Certain ethnicities do tend to have lower overall IQ numbers. I won't go thru the rates since I don't belive that those numbers mean anything. But it is true that there are "smarter" ethnicities in theory. So then, should we just wipe out the ethnicities that have a lower potential for high IQs?

Well, that's one rather brutish approach that may help edge towards the goal of a more intelligent human race over time. But I would think that it would be much more effective to remove the less intelligent elements of all races from the gene pool. Granted, this will probably mean that more people from one race will be excluded than people from another race, but it's still not targeting specific races, it's establishing an objective criteria that has real and practical implications on human capibility, unlike the concept of race.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2008, 04:54:02 AM »

It has actually been proven that only 60% of IQ has to do with gentics, the rest is enviromental factors. So a child born to two parents with IQ's in the 140's could have an IQ of 140 at birth in theory and an IQ of 100 as an adult if they have poor parents/enviroment. And two parents with an IQ of 70 each could have a child with an IQ of 70 at birth and and IQ of 140 as an adult given the right enviroment and parents. Parenting has little to do with having a high IQ.

It's still a fairly good standard, a few people who should not reproduce for genetic reasons may slip through and a few who actually should may be stopped from doing so (mostly people on the borders only separated by 10 points or so anyway, which is a difference only minimally siginificant statistically speaking). But statistically speaking the numbers are relatively insignificant and the overall effect will be as desired. Granted, if we could develop a better method of determining genetic predisposition towards intelligence we should use that, but even with 40% variation the desired effect shouldn't be delayed by too much.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #52 on: January 07, 2008, 04:55:45 AM »

I think you'd be hard pressed to show that eliminating people with low IQs would actually benefit society.  Why is every single heavily industrialized nation importing uneducated and unskilled labour en masse? 

You're assuming that by the time the results of these policies are observable that people will still be required for unskilled labour; I suspect that computers will take over that role before genetics, even with selective breeding, and remove the less intelligent segments of society.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #53 on: January 07, 2008, 05:00:26 AM »

You are trying so hard to play devils advocate GIC, it is almost funny laugh

Although I must confess I wonder how your priest feels about your desire to weed out the "less desireables."
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #54 on: January 07, 2008, 05:03:13 AM »

You're assuming that by the time the results of these policies are observable that people will still be required for unskilled labour; I suspect that computers will take over that role before genetics, even with selective breeding, and remove the less intelligent segments of society.

You know all those predictions about life in the 21st century made during the mid-20th century...

Still, the burden is on you to offer anything more than your own ramblings that the elimination of such people from our society will be beneficial.  Something from a respected economist would suffice. 

In many ways this is much like the immigration debate going on in Europe and the US, and real economist are almost all of the position that more unskilled workers are needed in the future, not less. In this week's economist...
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #55 on: January 07, 2008, 05:06:49 AM »

I remember when I was pregnant with my oldest and still working, a co-worker declared how overpoulated the world was and how having children is selfish and evil because we are sapping the resources (mind you we worked at a preschool! Grin) And then he went on to say how he will likely never have children, but if he did, he would only have one. I recently found out that he is married to a woman with twins and they are expecting their third baby and want at least one more. Ah, how life and our viewpoints change Grin

My husband nearly had a vasectomy when we first wed because we never wanted to have children. I decided we shouldn't because we might change out minds. Now 11 years, 6 pregnancies and 3 babies later we want to have another 3 children. Viewpoints based on thoughts outside a window often change once we step inside and look around.

I must go to bed now, I have class to teach in the morning. But you have been a real hoot Gic. laugh I hope I know you in a few years so that I can bring this all back to your memory and show you how silly you once were. Good night, and God bless! Grin
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #56 on: January 07, 2008, 05:21:12 AM »

You know all those predictions about life in the 21st century made during the mid-20th century...

Still, the burden is on you to offer anything more than your own ramblings that the elimination of such people from our society will be beneficial.  Something from a respected economist would suffice. 

In many ways this is much like the immigration debate going on in Europe and the US, and real economist are almost all of the position that more unskilled workers are needed in the future, not less. In this week's economist...

Find me an economist that stays up to date with the newest journal publications in Artifiical Intelligence then I may be able to find you one who will advocate this point of view.

The computer scientists and roboticists behind Robocup have predicted that a team of robot soccer players should be able to defeat the world cup soccer winners by 2050. I personally don't know of any people better qualified to make this prediction. If indeed this comes to pass, this level of AI should easily be capable of preforming the various unskilled labour positions now exploited. Furthermore, it is to the advantage of the human race to replace humans in these positions with robots as this would increase the efficiency of our economy. I doubt you'll find may economists making these predictions as they tend to only deal with economic predictions within the next two decades, even if we started selective breeding today it would take a few generations for the results to be notable, probably closer to 2100. And while I'm not predicting any revolutinary technological developments by then (anti-gravity devices, ftl spacecraft, etc.) I do expect computers and AI to continue to evolve at a rate at least comprable to what we have seen over the past 70 years.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 05:27:18 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #57 on: January 07, 2008, 05:22:30 AM »

You are trying so hard to play devils advocate GIC, it is almost funny laugh

More often than not, I don't play the devil's advocate, I am the devil's advocate. Grin

Quote
Although I must confess I wonder how your priest feels about your desire to weed out the "less desireables."

You're assuming I go to Church on an even semi-regular basis. I try to make it for pascha, but not much beyond that. Wink
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 05:29:57 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #58 on: January 07, 2008, 05:26:11 AM »

I remember when I was pregnant with my oldest and still working, a co-worker declared how overpoulated the world was and how having children is selfish and evil because we are sapping the resources (mind you we worked at a preschool! Grin) And then he went on to say how he will likely never have children, but if he did, he would only have one. I recently found out that he is married to a woman with twins and they are expecting their third baby and want at least one more. Ah, how life and our viewpoints change Grin

My husband nearly had a vasectomy when we first wed because we never wanted to have children. I decided we shouldn't because we might change out minds. Now 11 years, 6 pregnancies and 3 babies later we want to have another 3 children. Viewpoints based on thoughts outside a window often change once we step inside and look around.

I must go to bed now, I have class to teach in the morning. But you have been a real hoot Gic. laugh I hope I know you in a few years so that I can bring this all back to your memory and show you how silly you once were. Good night, and God bless! Grin

I'm making statements about what I believe would be sound policy. As for my personal choices in life, who knows. But in the end, one person cannot make a substantial genetic impact on the human race, just as one person cannot 'reverse global warming' by buying a hybrid, to try to do so is purely ideological and ultimately pointless. Plus, if I were to be consistent with my idea of those with higher IQ's having more children and those with lower IQ's having fewer I would have several children, but I find it rather unlikely that this will happen.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2008, 05:32:41 AM »

I simply can't resist! You are so funny Gic! I have a new title for you "Orthodox calvanist" it is perfect for you! Since God couldn't possibly love those with lower IQ's if we take your logic to its conclusion, then we would only be loved if we were predestined to be loved. So then, only those with higher IQ's should be able to be "saved" by God! I think actually "Orhtodox hyper-calvinst" would work even better!
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #60 on: January 07, 2008, 05:36:48 AM »

Although I don't agree with you I can come up with more criteria. Since a good number of truly heinous criminals also have a high IQ we should also use criminal behavior as a factor too. And everyone knows that once you commit a minor infraction that it means you are more able to commit more serious infractions. And if your parents are criminals you are more likely to become one also. So-I propose that all misdomeanors-crimes ect. should have the death penalty as the penalty.

Jaywalking-death
fraud-death
spitting on the sidewalk-death
murder-death

That would weed out people really quick. And if we take away the whole "juvenile" system, we could kill kids before they can grow into heinous criminals in the future! That might even curb the graffiti!
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 05:37:40 AM by Quinault » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #61 on: January 07, 2008, 05:37:26 AM »

I simply can't resist! You are so funny Gic!

I do my best. Grin

Quote
I have a new title for you "Orthodox calvanist" it is perfect for you! Since God couldn't possibly love those with lower IQ's if we take your logic to its conclusion, then we would only be loved if we were predestined to be loved. So then, only those with higher IQ's should be able to be "saved" by God! I think actually "Orhtodox hyper-calvinst" would work even better!

Well, I can appreciate the logic of the calvinists, as I used to be one, but the concept of divine love forces me to a slightly different conclusion: I'm actually a universalist, I think everyone will be saved all of humanity, the angels, the demons, and even lucifer himself. Of course, I really don't see how any of this theology stuff applies to a good discussion on genetics...let's leave the who religion thing out of it. Perhaps a better title for me would be 'Orthodox Deist' <gasp> Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #62 on: January 07, 2008, 05:39:38 AM »

I do my best. Grin

Well, I can appreciate the logic of the calvinists, as I used to be one, but the concept of divine love forces me to a slightly different conclusion: I'm actually a universalist, I think everyone will be saved all of humanity, the angels, the demons, and even lucifer himself. Of course, I really don't see how any of this theology stuff applies to a good discussion on genetics...let's leave the who religion thing out of it. Perhaps a better title for me would be 'Orthodox Deist' <gasp> Wink

Ah, but you belive certain people can have the right to live and others can not. So that would mean that they don't deserve protection, ergo they don't deserve to be "saved." Everything in our worldview can be tracked back to our view of humanity thru the eyes of God.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #63 on: January 07, 2008, 05:39:38 AM »

Although I don't agree with you I can come up with more criteria. Since a good number of truly heinous criminals also have a high IQ we should also use criminal behavior as a factor too. And everyone knows that once you commit a minor infraction that it means you are more able to commit more serious infractions. And if your parents are criminals you are more likely to become one also. So-I propose that all misdomeanors-crimes ect. should have the death penalty as the penalty.

Jaywalking-death
fraud-death
spitting on the sidewalk-death
murder-death

That would weed out people really quick. And if we take away the whole "juvenile" system, we could kill kids before they can grow into heinous criminals in the future! That might even curb the graffiti!

Nah, I'd rather have a society of intelligent criminal than stupid slaves. But I've always been a bit of a non-conformist, though I'm sure there's also some genetic inclination towards that belief as well (I did mention I was a genetic-determinist didn't I). Wink
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 05:40:15 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #64 on: January 07, 2008, 05:41:44 AM »

Alright, then here is another; health. If mommy was obese, you are more likely to be obese and as such you are unhealthy and a drain on society as much as a person with low IQ and income. So anyone with parents that have had certain cancers, and other illnesses that have a genetic component should be thus eliminated or sterlized.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: January 07, 2008, 05:43:16 AM »

Ah, but you belive certain people can have the right to live and others can not. So that would mean that they don't deserve protection, ergo they don't deserve to be "saved." Everything in our worldview can be tracked back to our view of humanity thru the eyes of God.

Hey, I'm not arguing the execution of anyone, I'm simply discussing the restriction of reproduction. I also tend towards libertarianism, believe it or not; but I'd much rather see government regulation of reproduction than of driving, gun ownership, etc...but I digress and start to descend into politics so I'll leave it at that.

As for whether or not they should be 'saved', I'm generally careful not to mix my politics/sociology/science/etc. with my metaphysics, they are two different realms and the twain should never meet.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #66 on: January 07, 2008, 05:44:00 AM »

Nah, I'd rather have a society of intelligent criminal than stupid slaves. But I've always been a bit of a non-conformist, though I'm sure there's also some genetic inclination towards that belief as well (I did mention I was a genetic-determinist didn't I). Wink

Although that doesn't really track. A criminal will only commit crimes and damage society whereas a person with a low IQ that doesn't commit criminal acts can be utilized for society at large, a criminal is merely in it for themselves. A sociopath can't be counted on to help anyone but themselves. And a world of sociopaths wouldn't have anyone in it for long.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #67 on: January 07, 2008, 05:46:30 AM »

Alright, then here is another; health. If mommy was obese, you are more likely to be obese and as such you are unhealthy and a drain on society as much as a person with low IQ and income. So anyone with parents that have had certain cancers, and other illnesses that have a genetic component should be thus eliminated or sterlized.

You certainly make a good point there, thought it may have been a better point in the 20's than it is today; medicine seems likely to be able to correct these problems long before breeding could eliminate them so I tend not to view them as such great issues. I'm sure that we'll also be able to effect intelligence through biology and cybernetics someday as well, however since many of the brain's pathways are wired during gestation this will be a much greater challenge, the improvement of intelligence is one area where selective breeding can be a significan influence. Others may be such things as athleticism, but I personally view intelligence as the most important in this day and age.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #68 on: January 07, 2008, 05:47:45 AM »

Hey, I'm not arguing the execution of anyone, I'm simply discussing the restriction of reproduction. I also tend towards libertarianism, believe it or not; but I'd much rather see government regulation of reproduction than of driving, gun ownership, etc...but I digress and start to descend into politics so I'll leave it at that.

As for whether or not they should be 'saved', I'm generally careful not to mix my politics/sociology/science/etc. with my metaphysics, they are two different realms and the twain should never meet.

By manging reproduction you automatically restrict life. So while you may not be killing a person, you are preventing them from coming into being, which is merely cutting the person off at the pass so to speak. If your mother was sterlized before you were born, you wouldn't be here. So while the sterlization of your mother wouldn't directly kill you, it would prevent you from living, ergo it kills you by not allowing you to exist. For example I kill mold in my bathroom by keeping it clean. By preventing something from forming I kill it.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #69 on: January 07, 2008, 05:48:37 AM »

Although that doesn't really track. A criminal will only commit crimes and damage society whereas a person with a low IQ that doesn't commit criminal acts can be utilized for society at large, a criminal is merely in it for themselves. A sociopath can't be counted on to help anyone but themselves.

Ultimatley I'm more concerned with the improvement of the genetics of the species than benefiting society, never been a huge fan of society and conformity, per se.

Quote
And a world of sociopaths wouldn't have anyone in it for long.

Eh, natural selection will take care of that before long. How many seriel killers do you know of that procreate? Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #70 on: January 07, 2008, 05:50:11 AM »

What about loss of brain function as an adult? My father lost half his brain as a teenager, I am sure his IQ was effected. So since he can't have a high IQ I never should have been born. He lost the thinking and reasoning side, so his ability to really be "intelligent" was diminished. So by your logic they should have removed his sex organs at the same time as removing the crushed portion of his brain.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #71 on: January 07, 2008, 05:51:26 AM »

By manging reproduction you automatically restrict life. So while you may not be killing a person, you are preventing them from coming into being, which is merely cutting the person off at the pass so to speak. If your mother was sterlized before you were born, you wouldn't be here.

Well, I guess everyone can have their dreams. But for better or worse the world's stuck with me. Wink

Quote
So while the sterlization of your mother wouldn't directly kill you, it would prevent you from living, ergo it kills you by not allowing you to exist. For example I kill mold in my bathroom by keeping it clean. By preventing something from forming I kill it.

Wow, talking about taking the pro-life movement to a while new level: protection of life before it's even conceived. Arn't we getting pretty close to the concept of the pre-existence of souls here? And I'm generally the one who gets accused of being an Origenist.  Cheesy
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #72 on: January 07, 2008, 05:53:07 AM »

What about loss of brain function as an adult? My father lost half his brain as a teenager, I am sure his IQ was effected. So since he can't have a high IQ I never should have been born. He lost the thinking and reasoning side, so his ability to really be "intelligent" was diminished. So by your logic they should have removed his sex organs at the same time as removing the crushed portion of his brain.

The DNA in the cell is still the same and that's what really matters, not the practical capacity of the person...as long as he could pass the IQ test before that I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to reproduce.

Of course, my mother would have probably failed the IQ test, or at least come very close to doing so, it's only by virtue of my father's genes that I sneaked above the line I have set. Then again, we might all be better off if he had mated with a more intelligent person and have created a more intelligent offspring than I.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 05:54:31 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #73 on: January 07, 2008, 05:54:37 AM »

Eh, natural selection will take care of that before long. How many seriel killers do you know of that procreate? Wink

A good number of serial killers also rape earlier on in their "careers" and if they don't use protection they will procreate. And sexual abusers pass on the proclivity to sexually abuse. So if you were molested, you are more likely to molest others. So then by your logic about IQ used on criminality we should automatically label all victims of sexual and violent crimes as criminals themselves since they will have greater proclivities to offend.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #74 on: January 07, 2008, 05:56:39 AM »

The DNA in the cell is still the same and that's what really matters, not the practical capacity of the person...as long as he could pass the IQ test before that I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to reproduce.

Of course, my mother would have probably failed the IQ test, or at least come very close to doing so, it's only by virtue of my father's genes that I sneaked above the line I have set. Then again, we might all be better off if he had mated with a more intelligent person and have created a more intelligent offspring than I.

He likely never would have passed an IQ test after the accident. In all likelihood he would have maybe been in the 90's, on a good day. But since it occured at a important developmental point neurologically, we will never know.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #75 on: January 07, 2008, 05:57:56 AM »

And since as a teen he damaged his brain, and he would have to have the IQ test before having children, and my brothers and I were not concieved until he was about 30, we would not be here, by your logic that is...
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #76 on: January 07, 2008, 05:58:53 AM »

You don't test DNA for IQ silly! Grin You test people!
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #77 on: January 07, 2008, 05:59:05 AM »

A good number of serial killers also rape earlier on in their "careers" and if they don't use protection they will procreate.

Thank God for abortion.

Quote
And sexual abusers pass on the proclivity to sexually abuse. So if you were molested, you are more likely to molest others. So then by your logic about IQ used on criminality we should automatically label all victims of sexual and violent crimes as criminals themselves since they will have greater proclivities to offend.

Perhaps this is another group that should be excluded from reproduction or at least we could set their intellectual standards higher for reproduction. Without a tendency of sexual abuse say a cutoff of 100 IQ, with the tendency perhaps a cutoff of 150, thus we tend to remove this group through genetic drift while still allowing those who are geniuses to contribute their intelligence to the future of the human race; a cost-benefit approach, if you will. Perhaps we can take the various factors and create a computer algorithm to determine who can and cannot reproduce and how many children a given couple can have based on research into genetics.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #78 on: January 07, 2008, 06:00:24 AM »

He likely never would have passed an IQ test after the accident. In all likelihood he would have maybe been in the 90's, on a good day. But since it occured at a important developmental point neurologically, we will never know.

Well, as you mentioned before, the test can be given in early childhood.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #79 on: January 07, 2008, 06:00:49 AM »

Then all people that hurt animals should be factored in too, since the worst of murderers start out by commiting violence against animals.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #80 on: January 07, 2008, 06:02:26 AM »

You don't test DNA for IQ silly! Grin You test people!

No, and that's the flaw in the system, perhaps some day we can determine how to test IQ from DNA, but by then we could probably just genetically engineer the fertilized egg to meet our intelligence specifications and eliminate the need for all of this.

Of course, while you don't test DNA for intelligence, the DNA is ultimately all that matters, it's what's passed on and becomes the foundation of future offspring.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #81 on: January 07, 2008, 06:03:16 AM »

Well, as you mentioned before, the test can be given in early childhood.

IQ is not something that is constant from early childhood into adulthood. It changes, grows, diminishes ect. Some of the kids with the highest IQ's that I taught in ECE were the biggest idiots in terms of practical knowledge. My brother has an IQ in the high 130's and if he didn't have others around to remind him about practical things he would be dead by now. Walking into traffic without looking, placing a pan on the burner and leaving it....in terms of practical knowledge, IQ tests are completely useless.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #82 on: January 07, 2008, 06:04:15 AM »

Of course, while you don't test DNA for intelligence, the DNA is ultimately all that matters, it's what's passed on and becomes the foundation of future offspring.

No, DNA is not the only thing that matters. We established before, it is only a 60% piece of the pie.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #83 on: January 07, 2008, 06:05:18 AM »

Then all people that hurt animals should be factored in too, since the worst of murderers start out by commiting violence against animals.

But by the time they procreate we can generally see whether or not they they are actually going to harm people as well. But until a certain age perhaps we could factor into our algorithms, for every animal you are caught torturing IQ requirements for reproduction go up by 5 points until you are 30 then we can observe based on your conduct towards other humans. Of course, if you do this (or even kill people) and are not caught, that tends to point towards intelligence so no harm is done by the fact that we can't factor this into our algorithm.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #84 on: January 07, 2008, 06:06:22 AM »

Then to take your argument further, and to take up your "joke" on the previous page, there should be people that are only deemed OK for breeding, but not for rearing children. High IQ's don't mean good parenting skills.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #85 on: January 07, 2008, 06:06:29 AM »

IQ is not something that is constant from early childhood into adulthood. It changes, grows, diminishes ect. Some of the kids with the highest IQ's that I taught in ECE were the biggest idiots in terms of practical knowledge. My brother has an IQ in the high 130's and if he didn't have others around to remind him about practical things he would be dead by now. Walking into traffic without looking, placing a pan on the burner and leaving it....in terms of practical knowledge, IQ tests are completely useless.

We don't have to worry about those details, natural selection will take care of that.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #86 on: January 07, 2008, 06:08:40 AM »

No, DNA is not the only thing that matters. We established before, it is only a 60% piece of the pie.

That's the 60% we can easily effect through policies on reproduction, to take care of the other 40% would require intervention into the day to day raising of a child and not even I am willing to go that far. If we take care of the biological part hopefully the evolution of our culture will take care of the other 40%, though I do think that greater access to educational resources is a good first step in the cultural direction (e.g. free tertiary education).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #87 on: January 07, 2008, 06:09:00 AM »

Natural selection has been proven completely unreliable. It simply does not work. That whole "birds" argument with the changing beaks is all based on faulty study and research. Once the adaptation to the beak is unnecessary the beak reverts to its former state. If natural selection truly worked then the changes within a species wouldn't be so cyclical.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #88 on: January 07, 2008, 06:11:10 AM »

That's the 60% we can easily effect through policies on reproduction, to take care of the other 40% would require intervention into the day to day raising of a child and not even I am willing to go that far. If we take care of the biological part hopefully the evolution of our culture will take care of the other 40%, though I do think that greater access to educational resources is a good first step in the cultural direction (e.g. free tertiary education).

If you want to go down a road you need to take it to its logical conclusion, otherwise it isn't a theory worth pursuing. You can be "half pregnant" afterall.

And if education was a factor then we would see an increase in IQ's since the advent of standardized education. But the reality is that standardized education has hurt our young minds more than it has helped them.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #89 on: January 07, 2008, 06:11:16 AM »

Then to take your argument further, and to take up your "joke" on the previous page, there should be people that are only deemed OK for breeding, but not for rearing children. High IQ's don't mean good parenting skills.

Quite possibly, but while I think the government can manage to impliment an objective scientific principle as policy, with well determined standards; I don't quite trust them for the subjective evaluation of who they believe to be a good parent and who might not be a good parent, that starts to encroach on issues related to freedom of conscious wheras an objectively designed eugenics programme does not.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.131 seconds with 72 queries.