PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 4th Feb 2017, 16:39   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing View Post
I think you would be back quickly into medieval time in terms of life expectency.
And therein lies the rub!

I do think it's a very real issue though, in that we have, for the very best reasons, removed the "survival of the fittest" imperative from the natural selection process. Overall I can't help but think that the number of people with a relatively low IQ will increase, whilst those with a high IQ will decrease, at least in as far as that is determined by inheritance.

I cannot for the life of me think of a reasonable solution, although I have long felt that there was merit in helping people to help themselves, rather than have a social and health care system that makes insufficient effort to persuade people that their lifestyle is the cause of most of their health problems.

The question is, how do you get people to change?

Obesity seems to be the current health issue headline, whilst years ago it used to be smoking. We managed to dissuade a lot of people from smoking; I'm not sure of the facts, but recall that when I was around 16 pretty much everyone I knew smoked, including many in my family, the only non-smoker was my mother, IIRC. Nowadays it seems only a minority of people smoke, after around 30 to 40 years of government effort to persuade people to stop.

It looks like we're starting out with tackling obesity in a way rather like we did 40 or more years ago with smoking, by putting a tax on sugar-containing soft drinks. I'd guess it'll take decades to tackle obesity like this, just as it did with smoking, and arguably we still haven't fixed the smoking health risk, as it seems a lot of young people smoke.

Perhaps we do need to have a more direct form of "reverse eugenics", to restore some of the balance we've disturbed in the natural order. Perhaps we should, for example, put over-weight people at the bottom of the waiting list for health care for weight related medical conditions, put alcohol abusers at the bottom of the waiting list for alcohol related conditions, and so on for any condition that could be directly related to a "lifestyle choice" (and I use that term with caution, as I can't think of a better way of saying exactly what I mean).
VP959 is online now  
Old 4th Feb 2017, 18:52   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 561
Maybe Darwinism is at work, perhaps the glut of obese people with low IQ dying young is just another one of natures dead ends.
As for a lowering of IQ maybe it's because there are fewer people of high IQ in the general population and those that are tend to congregate with their peers rather than mix with the Hoi polloi like wot us lot is.
Eugenics is the thin end of a slippery slope, just think if Hitler had his way Einstein would have been despatched to the ovens or nearer our time prof. Hawkins would have been done away with.

Pedants corner. Darwin never said survival of the fittest, he said those best fitted to the ecological niche they inhabit. That's why the dinosaurs died out and the Wee, sleekit , cowran, tim'rous beasties survived. pedant mode off.
Windy Militant is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2017, 21:42   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windy Militant View Post
Maybe Darwinism is at work, perhaps the glut of obese people with low IQ dying young is just another one of natures dead ends.
As for a lowering of IQ maybe it's because there are fewer people of high IQ in the general population and those that are tend to congregate with their peers rather than mix with the Hoi polloi like wot us lot is.
Eugenics is the thin end of a slippery slope, just think if Hitler had his way Einstein would have been despatched to the ovens or nearer our time prof. Hawkins would have been done away with.

Pedants corner. Darwin never said survival of the fittest, he said those best fitted to the ecological niche they inhabit. That's why the dinosaurs died out and the Wee, sleekit , cowran, tim'rous beasties survived. pedant mode off.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Darwin was directly linked to the "survival of the fittest" principle.

I agree that eugenics is the thin end of a slippery slope, but isn't what we're doing already a subtle form of eugenics?

Not in the way that those seeking the rather mythical "racial purity" ideal thought, perhaps, but nevertheless we are interfering with natural selection, albeit for the very best of humanitarian reasons.
VP959 is online now  
Old 4th Feb 2017, 22:49   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,199
A walk around a council estate is the best argument for eugenics. At present we have natural selection in reverse. The type of people we need more of can't afford children because both partners have to work to pay sky high taxes to pay for the unemployed single mothers raising six children on benefits in public housing, who will grow up to repeat the cycle in ever growing numbers.
Metro man is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2017, 22:52   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,495
So killing them is the answer? Jus' askin' like!
charliegolf is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2017, 23:09   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 68
Posts: 594
Quote:
breeding programs ..
Nice there is an idea....can I pick my partners?


Uh...sorry....forgot....if it were run by the Guvmint...can you imagine how that would turn out!
SASless is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2017, 23:30   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 72
Your missing my point. Most eugenic programs are proposed by smart rich people .. the effects of the program don't effect them.
If It's done in a fair manner then they are included in the game ..
There was is no help for the weak. Only the 'best' survive ..
So bad eyesight for example is bred out.

My point being those who favour eugenics tend to overlook their own shortcomings at the expense of the masses ..

thats just on eyesight. There are many more things
SARF is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 00:33   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,199
Singapores founding father, Lee Kuan Yew had ideas regarding eugenics and today Singapore has a government run matchmaking service for the upper level of society to encourage the procreation of talent.

He also explained in one of his books that when a talented Catholic became a priest he was unable to reproduce due to church laws on celibacy, so the desirable traits came to an end.

However when a talented Jew became a rabbi he attracted high level females as potential marriage partners as there was considerable status in the community in being the wife of a rabbi, therefore quality children were the result.

Looking at Ireland and Israel its an interesting theory.
Metro man is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 09:24   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 399
Some of you posting on this thread had better hope the things you rant for do not come true.

Can't see you passing the intelligence test.
ExRAFRadar is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 10:13   #30 (permalink)
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 695
I think folks need to clarify what they mean by "eugenics". Do you mean actively selecting for particular traits, like pedigree animal breeders do? That's called "positive eugenics", and it hinges on the specification of those positive traits. If you regard blond hair and blue eyes as desirable traits? Then we have a problem, and some very bad precedents from history, I suspect.

But what about "negative eugenics", which means selecting against undesirable traits? If we could eliminate genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis or Down syndrome, have we suffered a loss of "diversity"? I think that would still leave us with plenty of genetic diversity to be getting on with. Not everyone agrees, of course, such as actress Sally Phillips, who has a son with Down syndrome as is outspoken against any form of genetic selection, at least partly for religious reasons,.
bnt is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 11:25   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnt View Post
I think folks need to clarify what they mean by "eugenics". Do you mean actively selecting for particular traits, like pedigree animal breeders do? That's called "positive eugenics", and it hinges on the specification of those positive traits. If you regard blond hair and blue eyes as desirable traits? Then we have a problem, and some very bad precedents from history, I suspect.

But what about "negative eugenics", which means selecting against undesirable traits? If we could eliminate genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis or Down syndrome, have we suffered a loss of "diversity"? I think that would still leave us with plenty of genetic diversity to be getting on with. Not everyone agrees, of course, such as actress Sally Phillips, who has a son with Down syndrome as is outspoken against any form of genetic selection, at least partly for religious reasons,.
In my own case, I was just observing that we are, for good reasons, already interfering with natural selection, by medical intervention and social support.

My personal view is that this has already affected us; a very much less extreme view than the one expressed in this post: EUGENICS but along similar lines.

It wasn't our intent when setting up health and social care to create this potential problem, but when do we reach the point where the less able in society are such a large proportion of the whole that the more able aren't able to support them?
VP959 is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 11:59   #32 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
I do think it's a very real issue though, in that we have, for the very best reasons, removed the "survival of the fittest" imperative from the natural selection process.
For you to claim that you are somehow above the laws of nature and outside the remit of evolution is the most mind-blowing arrogance imaginable.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 13:19   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 304
Quote:
Singapores founding father, Lee Kuan Yew had ideas regarding eugenics and today Singapore has a government run matchmaking service for the upper level of society to encourage the procreation of talent.
And he also started the Lee dynasty, to keep his own genes in charge.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 13:26   #34 (permalink)
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 71
Posts: 233
Quote:
but when do we reach the point where the less able in society are such a large proportion of the whole that the more able aren't able to support them?
Don't know when it will happen, but al least we won't starve. Roast Chav, anyone?
UniFoxOs is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 14:16   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
For you to claim that you are somehow above the laws of nature and outside the remit of evolution is the most mind-blowing arrogance imaginable.
I was making no claim, merely making an observation, with no arrogance implied or intended.

The point I was trying to make was that we have created a social environment where natural selection is not working as it would in a "natural" environment, and that seems to be having consequences on the balance of our society.

I'm not saying, or implying, that this is wrong, a bad thing or otherwise being critical, just making the observation that if you provide good health and social care, for the very best of reasons (reasons I agree with, in the main) then that will skew the way we evolve.

Perhaps it is natural, in that we are evolving to be more caring and look after each other more effectively, but it seems to me that we are already deploying eugenics, or perhaps "reverse eugenics" without having intended to.
VP959 is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 14:40   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,339
"Desirable" traits often come at the cost of something - you just have to look at pedigree dogs to see what a mess it's lead to. Not to mention that what makes you "fit" for one environment can render you dead in another - the very obesity already mentioned is a fine example. Great when fat is scarce but not so good when plentiful.

Eugenics can never work because it's always based on ideology, politics and self-interest.

Who are we to judge what might develop into a useful trait in 100,000 years? Eugenics isn't about change, it's about the narrowing of the gene pool judged against an ideal. That way lies extinction. Variety is the spice of life.
le Pingouin is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 15:19   #37 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
The point I was trying to make was that we have created a social environment where natural selection is not working as it would in a "natural" environment
That is precisely the mind blowing arrogance that I am pointing out - you are suggesting that "we" are somehow magic and special and not ourselves part of "nature".

It seems more reasonable to suppose that we are part of "nature" and that we are governed by the laws of nature, and that anything we "choose" to do is not "overriding" natural selection but is simply a part of the natural selection mechanism.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 15:28   #38 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
That is precisely the mind blowing arrogance that I am pointing out - you are suggesting that "we" are somehow magic and special and not ourselves part of "nature".

It seems more reasonable to suppose that we are part of "nature" and that we are governed by the laws of nature, and that anything we "choose" to do is not "overriding" natural selection but is simply a part of the natural selection mechanism.
Look, I'm trying really hard to be inoffensive here, and fully accept this is a subject that could very easily cause offence. If I've misused the term "we", when meaning the human race as a whole, without intending to be arrogant, then I apologise. I'm not sure of a term I could use that would not cause you offence, so I'll desist from commenting further.
VP959 is online now  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 16:18   #39 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,120
I'm not offended, I'm just pointing out that for the human race (via any of its members) to regard itself as outside or above nature is arrogance.


We are governed by the laws of nature just like everything else. We are subject to natural selection, we have no capability to interfere with or override it, anything we do is simply part of it, even this discussion.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2017, 17:44   #40 (permalink)
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 71
Posts: 233
Quote:
We are governed by the laws of nature just like everything else. We are subject to natural selection, we have no capability to interfere with or override it, anything we do is simply part of it, even this discussion.
You seem to be implying that events such as the Holocaust are part of natural selection. I don't think many people will agree with that.
UniFoxOs is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 19:35.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1