BF2S Forums Should we require an IQ test to breed??

This can really lead to a cart and horse debate I suppose.  Or maybe that's chicken and egg.  But is it nature breeding nurture or nurture controlling nature?  Put differently, do intelligent people have intelligent offspring because they raise them intelligently, or due to reasons beyond that?

Genetics provide the slate/canvas.  I'm not supposing the canvas then populates itself.  However, without that foundation, no house will stand.

Last edited by puckmercury (2006-06-19 13:12:56)

I said no, cause that's the way fascism starts.

Kung Jew wrote:

Gotta disagree here.  I vote 'no' because I believe prerequisites for reproduction sounds too much like trying to make a better race. We have to take the bad with the good, stupid with the smart, etc... 

This topic has a bazillion branching topics that spawn in my thoughts as I'm typing this.  Aryan races, Genetic research, moral ethics in cloning....

Interesting... 

Replies? Thoughts?

KJ

As a follow up line to the gene 'ool,  if I only had a nickel everytime I've wanted to shout:

*Loud whistle*  "You, yeah you, in the shallow end of the gene pool, GET OUT!"

ok look two fs don't make an A.....two retards make another tard
from mind of mencia...only difference is that I added and did not say everything he  said

Last edited by bigp66 (2006-06-19 13:25:41)

CameronPoe wrote:

Maybe a better method would be to allow everybody to breed but if a particular child doesn't meet specific intelligence standards by the age of 10 then we give it a lethal injection. Sound good? Thought not. It's about a good a plan as the one being proposed here.

All the poison would cost too much so it is a terrible plan.... Use Cricket/Baseball bats it's cheaper as they can be recycled....

Uhh... Sorry if that offends anybody, my sense of humour has always been a little dark.

Last edited by Flecco (2006-06-19 13:28:33)

Three is a word for this topic of "improving the gene pool": Eugenics

What the poll is suggesting is Negative Eugenics which is restricting or removing selected traits from the gene pool.  We have already outlawed removing criminals and disabled people from the gene pool here in the US.

Positive Eugenics is when you encourage the spread of specific traits in the gene pool.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

there should certainly be a limit on the number of people that people could have ( i think two ) because we're going to reach our carrying capacity (9th grade bio) and some epidemic is guna wipe out a lot of people. (bird flu)

Malthusian Theory realized.  Not really suggesting the Chinese approach here though.  Not that it is in any way without merit.  Not a surprising viewpoint from "CommieChipmunk" if the handle reflects your real life views at all.

CameronPoe wrote:

Or we could send them to take part in live one-on-one weaponless fights against lions and tigers in a massive arena. We could call it 'Retardiors'.

Uhm a bit dramatic, but very traditional Christian of you.  Having the name Daniel myself, I find it of particular interest.    Are you suggesting you see no problem, or that we haven't hit upon a solution you find palatteable?  If the latter, what would you suggest?

cheshiremoe wrote:

What the poll is suggesting is Negative Eugenics which is restricting or removing selected traits from the gene pool.  We have already outlawed removing criminals and disabled people from the gene pool here in the US.

Positive Eugenics is when you encourage the spread of specific traits in the gene pool.

To be honest, I think that's a shame.  There have been many studies that link violent and criminal traits through family lines.  This also brings up the nature vs. nurture debate.  So, perhaps we simply remove the children from those incarcerated.  If we've decided democratically that they are of no use to society, how can we then say they are fit to raise and form a new life in this world?

Last edited by puckmercury (2006-06-19 16:46:00)

cheshiremoe wrote:

Thats correct in my opinion, but where do you draw the line of who can or can't raise kids.  We do, in some states, remove/execute extremely violent people form society.  I also think that society would not work if every one was as smart as the average person today, at least not with our current levels of technology.  If every one has a high IQ then no one will be suited for the repetitive mind numbing jobs. yeah they piss me off, but we still need them.

Point taken, however that is also likely to spur new thinking with respect to those tasks and better methods for accomplishing them.  And my point is that the "average person today" isn't smart at all.  Furthermore, that intelligence seems to be dropping.  As for IQ being a function of upbringing, the idea behind IQ is and always has been that it doesn't change.  It's intended to measure your aptitude for critical thinking and problem solving and your general propencity to absorb new information.

cheshiremoe wrote:

I also think that the gap between the well educated and the not so well educated is growing (more people to the extream ends of the spectrum and fewer in the middle or average).

Absolutely, but I think a lot of that is due to people not taking responsibility on themselves for the learning.  That along with parents not taking any responsibility on themselves for the education of their children.  They place the onus with the school system, public or private, to fully provide that education.  Granted, some school systems make it more or less difficult to obtain that education.  However, the school can only provide the substance, the parents can only try to shape the container, but it is up to the individual student to supply that mold and maintain its shape to retain that knowledge.

How bout we take all the "dumb" people and send them to "camps."  There they will be given good jobs, and can socialize, study, take up hobbies, and worship when they're not dying of typhus.  Or being disciplined for not making their beds.  Or for nothing at all.

Weed out <insert_type_of_person>?  Great idea!  It worked in Europe in the late 30's & early 40's, right?

Guys?

Where'd everyone go?

yes, but most people are too stupid not to.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-06-20 09:38:14)

Kung Jew wrote:

antin0de wrote:

How bout we take all the "dumb" people and send them to "camps."  There they will be given good jobs, and can socialize, study, take up hobbies, and worship when they're not dying of typhus.  Or being disciplined for not making their beds.  Or for nothing at all.

Weed out <insert_type_of_person>?  Great idea!  It worked in Europe in the late 30's & early 40's, right?

Guys?

Where'd everyone go?

Be careful with the line you are walking on....   I recognize the humor and sarcasm, but some of our E.S.L. members might not connect the two.  You are likely to draw fire from this.  Be prepared.

KJ

Sorry, KJ.  That particular point was raised by the aforementioned sir previously and I addressed it as best I could.  Did you not read it or did you have another angle? </avoiding flame war>

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I say we just take all the stupid warning labels off every product and let nature take care of the rest.

I am down with that, but you have to eliminate the liability of the manufactures (no court cases brought by family members).