How left wing is this forum?

[Shechemite]

Nowhere fucking left wing enough in my book. The Brixton forum is full of gentrifiers, entrepreneurs, self satisfied home owners and sneering Blairite Tory boys. It's a bloody embarrassment.

Why not just get rid of the Brixton forum then.

 

[Shechemite]

Some are born to fail.
Eugenics could sort that out (not that I'm a fan)

eugenics isn’t a singular philosophy or practice though. What sort of eugenics could sort it out

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Why not just get rid of the Brixton forum then.

That's a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face

 

[Shechemite]

Removing an infected digit surely

 

[krtek a houby]

Never mind the bollox

 

[NoXion]

Are you a Richard Dawkins fanboy by any chance? He was wrong, eugenics doesn't work.

Only because it's never been consistently practiced for long enough with any particular population of humans. Selective breeding takes multiple generations to produce stand-out traits, even when complete control is taken over the reproduction of a population. Since humans tend to live for quite a few decades, seeing results could take centuries.

The problem with eugenics is not that it won't work. The problem with eugenics is that getting it to work will require running roughshod over the autonomy of a large number of people, for generations. Objecting to eugenics on the grounds that it "doesn't work" is like objecting to nuking a random selection of 50% of the cities on Earth, because doing so won't reduce the population. It misses the real point which makes such proposals objectionable.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Removing an infected digit surely

I prefer antibiotics to pitch and saw

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

eugenic principles work in the broad sense. selective breeding to produce desired results is quite evident when we look to domesticated species. (although this is not without side effects)

if we ask does eugenics work in humans we have to define the goal conditions and the test first.

that or just go with the idea that eugenics is unethical in humans. (I subscribe to this one)

 

[kabbes]

No, eugenics will not “work” in the sense that its proponents mean. It presupposes that the features it is trying to improve (which are always based on culturally-defined concepts like “intelligence”, because that’s what it’s actually all about) exist on a scale and that the scale is genetically determined. Generally, both these things are untrue. The defining evolutionary characteristic for humans (ie the thing that above all is genetically human) is plasticity. We have an extraordinary ability — uniquely so — for our genes to produce completely different outcomes depending on environmental context. The genetic regulatory system is regulated by an epigenetic system that is regulated by a physiological system that is regulated by a cognitive system that is regulated by a social system. Environment affects and is affected by all parts of those embedded systems except the genetic one, and this is what produces the visible variation for almost all features we care about. The only real genetic determinism humans have is (a) that which produces no evolutionary advantage within a range, so whose variation is irrelevant (such as hair colour), (b) that which produces no variation in the first place (like number of teeth or positioning of the nose and ears); and (c) some discontinuous and discrete genetic abnormalities that produce specific disorders. The last of these are the only type of variation that could be “usefully” eugenically eliminated but they are a narrow set and rarely the things people actually mean when they suggest that eugenics “works”.

 

[NoXion]

No, eugenics will not “work” in the sense that its proponents mean. It presupposes that the features it is trying to improve (which are always based on culturally-defined concepts like “intelligence”, because that’s what it’s actually all about) exist on a scale and that the scale is genetically determined. Generally, both these things are untrue.

It's my understanding that intelligence has a genetic component, and could therefore be amenable to artificial selection, at least far as that component goes.

The defining evolutionary characteristic for humans (ie the thing that above all is genetically human) is plasticity. We have an extraordinary ability — uniquely so — for our genes to produce completely different outcomes depending on environmental context. The genetic regulatory system is regulated by an epigenetic system that is regulated by a physiological system that is regulated by a cognitive system that is regulated by a social system.

Other animals apart from humans (including animals we have successfully bred) can have all of those things as well. Cows (and the wild aurochs that they were bred from) are herd animals, are you claiming that they don't have any social system? Even chickens have a pecking order.

Environment affects and is affected by all parts of those embedded systems except the genetic one, and this is what produces the visible variation for almost all features we care about.

Control of the environment is necessary for artificial selection to work, no matter the species. This changes nothing.

The only real genetic determinism humans have is (a) that which produces no evolutionary advantage within a range, so whose variation is irrelevant (such as hair colour), (b) that which produces no variation in the first place (like number of teeth or positioning of the nose and ears); and (c) some discontinuous and discrete genetic abnormalities that produce specific disorders. The last of these are the only type of variation that could be “usefully” eugenically eliminated but they are a narrow set and rarely the things people actually mean when they suggest that eugenics “works”.

This is simply because there has never been a human population consistently subjected to eugenic practices long enough for measurable results to be attained. Humans evolved, and indeed are still evolving today. With enough effort this could be pushed in specific directions, but the actions necessary in order to do that successfully would inevitably be a moral and ethical disaster area.

Why isn't that good enough? I think that nuking random cities is an utterly reprehensible method of reducing the global population and that only a complete monster would do such a thing, I don't think there's any need to question the lethality of nuclear weapons, in order to sensibly reject such a proposal.

 

[kabbes]

In short, there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that there is such a thing as a general “intelligence” that is measurable on a scale, let alone that this is a thing with genetic variation. Meanwhile, there is a huge amount of both theoretical and empirical evidence to suggest the opposite. The fact that the myth of g has dominated the last 100 years of popular imagination and government policy has been of enormous detriment to our social systems. So no, there is no reason to think that humanity can be made “more intelligent” through eugenics.

This is a principle that applies across all the cultural constructs eugenicists have historically wanted to “improve”.

ETA: and it matters because scientific racism isn’t just something that should be rejected because of its human cost, but also the erroneous thinking that lies behind it is a major impediment to actual future development. It encourages a “middle-ground” compromise of “well we won’t go as far as eugenics but that makes it okay for us to take some of the ideas behind it forward“.

 

[Doodler]

Only because it's never been consistently practiced for long enough with any particular population of humans. Selective breeding takes multiple generations to produce stand-out traits, even when complete control is taken over the reproduction of a population. Since humans tend to live for quite a few decades, seeing results could take centuries.

The problem with eugenics is not that it won't work. The problem with eugenics is that getting it to work will require running roughshod over the autonomy of a large number of people, for generations. Objecting to eugenics on the grounds that it "doesn't work" is like objecting to nuking a random selection of 50% of the cities on Earth, because doing so won't reduce the population. It misses the real point which makes such proposals objectionable.

Exactly. 'Wouldn't work' is wrong and irrelevant. The question is about groups of professionals defining what constitutes human worth (hint: be more like them) and then using state power to play at cattle breeder with the human population.

 

[NoXion]

In short, there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that there is such a thing as a general “intelligence” that is measurable on a scale, let alone that this is a thing with genetic variation.

So how did human intelligence arise in the first place? We didn't just magically appear one day with the huge brains necessary for complex social behaviours. There must have been pressures within our ancestral environment that pushed our species towards the big brains and degree of social complexity we observe today.

Meanwhile, there is a huge amount of both theoretical and empirical evidence to suggest the opposite. The fact that the myth of g has dominated the last 100 years of popular imagination and government policy has been of enormous detriment to our social systems. So no, there is no reason to think that humanity can be made “more intelligent” through eugenics.

A hundred years is merely four or five human generations, so even if those policies both consistent with each other, and were themselves applied consistently (I'm guessing that neither of those things happened), that's not enough time.

This is a principle that applies across all the cultural constructs eugenicists have historically wanted to “improve”.

ETA: and it matters because scientifically racism isn’t just something that should be rejected because of its human cost, because also the erroneous thinking that lies behind it is a major impediment to actual future development. It encourages a “middle-ground” compromise of “well we won’t go as far as eugenics but that makes it okay for us to take some of the ideas behind it forward“.

Ironically considering the history of eugenics, selective breeding of humans would be more effective without the racism. A larger gene pool would mean greater variation to work with.

 

[Little Piranha]

Intelligence is a completely reified concept. It isn't a measurable quantity as there is no defined meaning. If by intelligence you are talking about having a high IQ this has been repeatedly shown to be a flawed measure of a very limited understanding of intelligence. It is affected by class, ability at test taking, practice etc. As kabbes says, even if there is some small genetic predisposition towards being good at taking IQ tests it would be far more heavily effected by nuture.

Even if it wasn't, is it really desirable to have everyone be really good at non verbal reasoning? This is a misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection, it isn't a constant striving to be 'better', it is adaption to the environment in order to procreate more successfully, therefore passing on the adapted genes.

The language of eugenics is very telling of a flawed world view- 'criminality', 'imbecility', 'deviance'. These are not genetic traits, or even concepts that we would generally subscribe to now.

 

[kabbes]

So how did human intelligence arise in the first place? We didn't just magically appear one day with the huge brains necessary for complex social behaviours. There must have been pressures within our ancestral environment that pushed our species towards the big brains and degree of social complexity we observe today.

It’s just so enormously more complex than that when it comes to intelligence. Intelligence is too complicated and too big an evolutionary advantage to think that a simple additive model of good vs bad alleles makes it go up and down. And without an additive model, you don’t get the commonly perceived concept of g.

 

[yield]

So how did human intelligence arise in the first place? We didn't just magically appear one day with the huge brains necessary for complex social behaviours. There must have been pressures within our ancestral environment that pushed our species towards the big brains and degree of social complexity we observe today.

Are huge brains even necessary for complex social behaviours? Ants, bees, termites, aphids, mole rats etc.

 

[NoXion]

Is just so enormously more complex than that when it comes to intelligence. Intelligence is too complicated and too big an evolutionary advantage to think that a simple additive model of good vs bad alleles makes it go up and down. And without an additive model, you don’t get the commonly perceived concept of g.

You don't even need to know that there are such things as genes in order to select for traits. Consistent selection will eventually produce results.

 

[kabbes]

You don't even need to know that there are such things as genes in order to select for traits. Consistent selection will eventually produce results.

Only if there is a meaningful scale to measure the trait against and the variation in the trait is genetically determined.

 

[NoXion]

Only if there is a meaningful scale to measure the trait against and the variation in the trait is genetically determined.

So it would work if athletic ability was the trait under consideration? Pretty sure that can be directly measured.

 

[krink]

Has benjy gone yet?

 

[kabbes]

So it would work if athletic ability was the trait under consideration? Pretty sure that can be directly measured.

But is it genetic ability or cultural adaptation that you are measuring?

 

[NoXion]

But is it genetic ability or cultural adaptation that you are measuring?

Well, I think answering that question would require a comparison of the respective genomes of the selected and non-selected populations. A hypothetical that will hopefully remain as such in the case of humans.

 

[Doodler]

Are huge brains even necessary for complex social behaviours? Ants, bees, termites, aphids, mole rats etc.

I don't know about aphids but all those other creatures in your list are eusocial. Depends how complex you mean, mole rats aren't going to get into ancestor worship, metallurgy or making pots any time soon.

 

[Bollox]

Let's call off the trolling instead.

I've had a few bottom dwelling arseholes like yourself doing that "lets accuse someone of doing what I am actually doing myself" thing, it seems to be a pastime here... and does little fto advance debate

Now fuck off you ,miserable little cockwomble

 

[danny la rouge]

I hadn’t really thought about it before, but if the male and female are respectively cockwombles and henwombles, are the young chickwombles? Or does it throw a curve here and go with something else?

 

[NoXion]

I've had a few bottom dwelling arseholes like yourself doing that "lets accuse someone of doing what I am actually doing myself" thing, it seems to be a pastime here... and does little fto advance debate

Now fuck off you ,miserable little cockwomble

You just slagged off the majority of the posters on this forum. If that's not trolling, then I'm a Martian.

 

[kabbes]

Just ignore it

 

[Ax^]

I've had a few bottom dwelling arseholes like yourself doing that "lets accuse someone of doing what I am actually doing myself" thing, it seems to be a pastime here... and does little fto advance debate

Now fuck off you ,miserable little cockwomble

So who did you use to be

I mean i could figure it out but feeling lazy today

 

[krtek a houby]

I've had a few bottom dwelling arseholes like yourself doing that "lets accuse someone of doing what I am actually doing myself" thing, it seems to be a pastime here... and does little fto advance debate

Now fuck off you ,miserable little cockwomble

Largely Faux-Lefty in the mould of early eighties studes throwing parties for the miners on strike
with a core group of cockwombles

Some are born to fail.
Eugenics could sort that out (not that I'm a fan)

Great debate

 

[Shechemite]

I just tried to get my nephews (7 and 9) to watch the animated animal farm. They weren’t having it.