21 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
There's a big debate to be had upon the speed at which the worst-case-scenario you describe could occur. One would hope people would become more wise over the years and eugenics wouldn't be required to advert some type of doomsday scenario created mostly by the social environment developing for the last 50-100 years.

The statistics I've seen show a drop in genotypic IQ of 1 point per generation. The difference between 1st and 3rd world status is about 20 IQ points, so 20 generations or roughly 200 years for a global collapse. If idiocracy's hypothesis is correct automated systems will keep civilization from collapsing completely for another 100 to 300 years.

Runter said:
With eugenics proponents often their argument breaks down to where they believe the ends justify the means.

Most eugenicists aren't overly radical nowadays, and it's an very small group of people. I think genetic manipulation and screening is the only viable option at this point of time, particularly embryo selection. There's an argument to be made to sterilize retarded people, but it's probably easier to just give them a shot every 3 months.
21 Jun, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Let's all just watch Idiocracy and then rejoin the conversation.
21 Jun, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Let's all just watch Idiocracy and then rejoin the conversation.


Hah! That's actually on Comedy Central right now.
21 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
The statistics I've seen show a drop in genotypic IQ of 1 point per generation.

This sounds about like the nonsense I'd expect from you, honestly. Link this study.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "genotypic IQ."

Dictionary.com said:
1. the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms with reference to a single trait, set of traits, or an entire complex of traits.
2. the sum total of genes transmitted from parent to offspring.


Maybe you mean just "IQ." Perhaps IQ tests of people from common ancestors. Regardless, it sounds as contrived as your overall claim.

Quote
The difference between 1st and 3rd world status is about 20 IQ points


Even on its face value this type of claim has always been criticized by a large amount of experts. It's widely known that IQ tests are often highly inaccurate when not comparing people of the same regional and educational circumstance.
21 Jun, 2009, Iovan Drake wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Hades_Kane said:
Let's all just watch Idiocracy and then rejoin the conversation.


Hah! That's actually on Comedy Central right now.


Brawndo! The thirst mutilator!
"It's got what plants crave!"
21 Jun, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Lyanic said:
For starters, we need to stop population growth right now, if not decrease the global population. The question is, what would be the ideal method for accomplishing such a grandiose feat? Do we allow those who are currently without to starve? Do we take more drastic measures, to even include a culling of the population? Or do we simply enact policies regarding reproduction?


I would suggest that proponents of this "utopia" should immediately cull themselves from the population to show their support.

Lyanic said:
The problem is, there are too many people around the world who think that reproducing without end is their God given right (quite literally).


It's God's command, therefore it isn't a problem.
21 Jun, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Actually, it's not communism, it's socialism.

Socialism is an ideal form of government, if you live in a world where all humans behave themselves and all resources are equally accessible. The idea is that you do whatever you can, you use whatever you need, and you give whatever anyone asks. Sounds good, if everyone plays ball. :)


I think you'll find what he was describing was actually communism.

Communism is the ideal utopia whereby there is no longer a government or class boundary, where as socialism is the step between capitalism and communism whereby the workers aim to control the means of production[1]. Communism is the ideal to which socialism works to, the final step so to speak, where all wealth is equally distributed.

From Wikipedia:

wikipedia said:
… socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production


where as

wikipedia said:
(Communism is the) socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general..


What he described was total wealth distribution, which is communism.
21 Jun, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Interesting. That's exactly 180 degrees flipped from what I learned when in school. I was given the impression that socialism was the lack of property rights, whereas communism was state-owned property that was distributed (in theory) equally.

Oh well, redefine the terms to make the right things sound evil. :)

In any case, lack of (or community owned) property rights only works in a utopia. Since I'm lazy and like to hoard shiny things, I won't be allowed in such a place. :evil:
21 Jun, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Interesting. That's exactly 180 degrees flipped from what I learned when in school. I was given the impression that socialism was the lack of property rights, whereas communism was state-owned property that was distributed (in theory) equally.

Oh well, redefine the terms to make the right things sound evil. :)


Thinking about it, I think you were taught correctly however I think you left out some details.

Socialism aims to move "property" out of an individuals hands and into the hands of the government. Everything is nationalised, and no one owns anything entirely by themselves.

Communism is the next step where the government ceases to be an individual body and becomes everyone. In a communist state, everyone owns everything because they are the government.

A subtle distinction, but a distinction non-the-less.
21 Jun, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Lyanic said:
The problem is, there are too many people around the world who think that reproducing without end is their God given right (quite literally).


It's God's command, therefore it isn't a problem.


Plenty of people feel its God's command to jump onto airplanes and crash into buildings, but we find that to be a problem nevertheless.
21 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Tyche said:
Lyanic said:
The problem is, there are too many people around the world who think that reproducing without end is their God given right (quite literally).


It's God's command, therefore it isn't a problem.


Plenty of people feel its God's command to jump onto airplanes and crash into buildings, but we find that to be a problem nevertheless.

Troll detection FAIL, as the meme would say. :tongue:
22 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Scandum said:
The statistics I've seen show a drop in genotypic IQ of 1 point per generation.

This sounds about like the nonsense I'd expect from you, honestly. Link this study.

I can't be bothered digging up the studies. The dysgenics article on Wikipedia used to contain quite a bit of information on the subject, but it was erased by a bunch of liberals.

Feel free to link me up with the studies that show there is no such thing.

Quote
Also, I don't know what you mean by "genotypic IQ."

Genotypic IQ is the IQ of an individual based on their genetics. Phenotypic IQ is the IQ of an individual based on their genetics and interaction with the environment. Someone can have a genotypic IQ of 120, but due to malnutrition or a bonk on the head have a phenotypic IQ of 80.

Quote
Even on its face value this type of claim has always been criticized by a large amount of experts.

Far from, it's well established that East Asians have an average IQ of roughly 105, whites 100, and African Americans have an IQ of 85. The big debate among the so called experts is what part of this difference is genetic, what part is biological, and what part is due to socio-economic influences. In other words, the experts agree the gap is real and has real consequences, they're just fighting over whether it's in the genes or if it's (what it invariably boils down to) because whitie keeps the black man down.
22 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Runter said:
Scandum said:
The statistics I've seen show a drop in genotypic IQ of 1 point per generation.

This sounds about like the nonsense I'd expect from you, honestly. Link this study.

I can't be bothered digging up the studies. The dysgenics article on Wikipedia used to contain quite a bit of information on the subject, but it was erased by a bunch of liberals.

Feel free to link me up with the studies that show there is no such thing.

Quote
Also, I don't know what you mean by "genotypic IQ."

Genotypic IQ is the IQ of an individual based on their genetics. Phenotypic IQ is the IQ of an individual based on their genetics and interaction with the environment. Someone can have a genotypic IQ of 120, but due to malnutrition or a bonk on the head have a phenotypic IQ of 80.

Quote
Even on its face value this type of claim has always been criticized by a large amount of experts.

Far from, it's well established that East Asians have an average IQ of roughly 105, whites 100, and African Americans have an IQ of 85. The big debate among the so called experts is what part of this difference is genetic, what part is biological, and what part is due to socio-economic influences. In other words, the experts agree the gap is real and has real consequences, they're just fighting over whether it's in the genes or if it's (what it invariably boils down to) because whitie keeps the black man down.


All rubbish from start to finish. :)
22 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
All rubbish from start to finish. :)


A lot of it sounds made up to me too.

I'm especially fond of the "I don't have to bother supporting my wild ass claims" part.

He did a similar thing on TMC…turns out the only support anyone could find was
a joke-ish story.

Good stuff, Scandum.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
22 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Runter said:
All rubbish from start to finish. :)


A lot of it sounds made up to me too.

I'm especially fond of the "I don't have to bother supporting my wild ass claims" part.

He did a similar thing on TMC…turns out the only support anyone could find was
a joke-ish story.

Good stuff, Scandum.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net


Rofl. Epic link.
22 Jun, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Hades_Kane said:
Tyche said:
Lyanic said:
The problem is, there are too many people around the world who think that reproducing without end is their God given right (quite literally).


It's God's command, therefore it isn't a problem.


Plenty of people feel its God's command to jump onto airplanes and crash into buildings, but we find that to be a problem nevertheless.

Troll detection FAIL, as the meme would say. :tongue:


Non sequitur FAIL.
The human right to marry and found families is so fundamental that even the dysfunctional U.N. managed to discover it.

I won't pretend to understand your Troll memes. I suppose "Communism - hey let's give it another go" or "How to best cleanse the planet of human detritus" (my summary) don't activate your detector.
22 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
You thought people were taking Scandum seriously, as anything but a troll? And you thought people were seriously saying we should give communism another go?
Your reading of the thread must be dramatically different from mine… :rolleyes:

EDIT: well, I suppose it's possible that Scandum himself actually believes all the stuff he spouts on the topic, but I think it's pretty clear from the replies to his posts that people aren't giving him too much credit…
22 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
All rubbish from start to finish. :)

Sure, still waiting for the links to proof me wrong.

The article on race and intelligence should back up my claims, the one on intelligence and fertility should speak for itself. Proceed at own risk.

Studies into race and intelligence (egalitarian bias): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_in...
Studies into intelligence and fertility (hereditarian bias): http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Dysgeni...
22 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Poor Scandum. Nice try, bro.

Here is the problem:

Scandum said:
The statistics I've seen show a drop in genotypic IQ of 1 point per generation.


and

Scandum said:
Genotypic IQ is the IQ of an individual based on their genetics. Phenotypic IQ is the IQ of an individual based on their genetics and interaction with the environment. Someone can have a genotypic IQ of 120, but due to malnutrition or a bonk on the head have a phenotypic IQ of 80.


This is what sounds goofy to me. That there are IQ differences
between populations is pretty meh, given that that it's statistically
shown and you're saying nothing new. Your big fetish is being a
"hereditarian", and these genotypic numbers are what sound
crackpot me. How exactly are you measuring the difference between
your nature and nurture IQ's? I'm not arguing there's no difference,
I'm saying you're posing with your air of certainty about knowing
the difference. You're nicked, me beauty.

But here's the best part.

Not only do the links you provide lack firm support for them,
you, your very own self, indicate lack of consensus:

Scandum said:
The big debate among the so called experts is what part of this difference is genetic, what part is biological, and what part is due to socio-economic influences. In other words, the experts agree the gap is real and has real consequences, they're just fighting over whether it's in the genes or if it's (what it invariably boils down to) because whitie keeps the black man down.


Poor Scandum.

Nice try, though, Dr. Science!

-Crat

PS lol at using wikinfo rather than wikipedia.:

Quote
Wikinfo (formerly Internet-Encyclopedia) is a fork of the English Wikipedia initiated by Fred Bauder in July 2003. Rather than adopting Wikipedia's neutral point of view editorial policy, Wikinfo's policy is to edit for either a sympathetic point of view or a critical point of view. Thus Wikinfo can host a set of articles about a particular topic, each presenting a particular point of view, and linked to the others at the top of the article.
22 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
How exactly are you measuring the difference between
your nature and nurture IQ's? I'm not arguing there's no difference,
I'm saying you're posing with your air of certainty about knowing
the difference.

Without knowing what genes increase IQ it's indeed impossible to measure genotypic IQ. You can however make the assumption that if people with an IQ above 100 have less children than people with an IQ below 100, the genotypic IQ is decreasing, even when phenotypic IQ is increasing due to better nutrition. Breast feeding for example is known to increase IQ, hence the recent push for breast feeding, which 10 years down the road will have an impact.

Cratylus said:
Not only do the links you provide lack firm support for them, you, your very own self, indicate lack of consensus:

The lack of consensus among the experts is more ideological than scientific. And I can't blame them, for there's a lot of money to be made doing political correct science.
20.0/332