way back, if you don’t mind thinking back, or more imagining back to an alternate world, resulting in an alternate world now, what if people had to be IQ tested before breeding. Just in case you’re too thick to understand that, it means the creatures with the potential to breed are IQ tested and need pass before a license to breed is issued.

since this is a hypothetical, i’ll not make any suggestions to do with enforcement, or the IQ level needed to be granted a license. It’s possible all the practical stuff to make this work is actually in those things, and in the real world it surely wouldn’t work. Intelligent people wouldn’t let it happen anyway.

in the alternate world I very likely wouldn’t have recombined my DNA, or been here to do that.

granted it’s a perverse contemplation in some ways, it gets nasty in the imposition of the practicalities.

with modern DNA testing there’s probably the added benefit of recombination analysis so the high IQ (potential) couples likely to throw negative outcomes can be discouraged. You see my language there is evolving, Discouraging negative outcomes sounds very practical, commonsense even. I could flip it, and say encouraging positive outcomes, yes, much better.

you could call the idea a selective breeding program, there’s nothing new about it.

humans have been involved in selective breeding going way back, including of their own species, and of humans’ good works there are respectable versions evident in human pet dogs, not all of which were bred for intelligence, some look like they chase parked cars, and there are other canine exotica. Culture is for the satisfaction of human nature, you can see it in pet dogs.

canines though have probably become more diverse (with the selective breeding programs). Humans love diversity.

so the soft nazi lives on in human pet dogs, and racehorses, cattle, sheep, and perhaps even in our wheat and barley etc while i’m indulging thoughts absurd.

anyway, to my questions..

when the human population stabilizes, what will the most powerful selection pressures be, that regulate breeding?

and, what will pet dogs look like, of the range of exotica, what can you imagine?

transition said:

way back, if you don’t mind thinking back, or more imagining back to an alternate world, resulting in an alternate world now, what if people had to be IQ tested before breeding. Just in case you’re too thick to understand that, it means the creatures with the potential to breed are IQ tested and need pass before a license to breed is issued.

since this is a hypothetical, i’ll not make any suggestions to do with enforcement, or the IQ level needed to be granted a license. It’s possible all the practical stuff to make this work is actually in those things, and in the real world it surely wouldn’t work. Intelligent people wouldn’t let it happen anyway.

in the alternate world I very likely wouldn’t have recombined my DNA, or been here to do that.

granted it’s a perverse contemplation in some ways, it gets nasty in the imposition of the practicalities.

with modern DNA testing there’s probably the added benefit of recombination analysis so the high IQ (potential) couples likely to throw negative outcomes can be discouraged. You see my language there is evolving, Discouraging negative outcomes sounds very practical, commonsense even. I could flip it, and say encouraging positive outcomes, yes, much better.

you could call the idea a selective breeding program, there’s nothing new about it.

humans have been involved in selective breeding going way back, including of their own species, and of humans’ good works there are respectable versions evident in human pet dogs, not all of which were bred for intelligence, some look like they chase parked cars, and there are other canine exotica. Culture is for the satisfaction of human nature, you can see it in pet dogs.

canines though have probably become more diverse (with the selective breeding programs). Humans love diversity.

so the soft nazi lives on in human pet dogs, and racehorses, cattle, sheep, and perhaps even in our wheat and barley etc while i’m indulging thoughts absurd.

anyway, to my questions..

when the human population stabilizes, what will the most powerful selection pressures be, that regulate breeding?

and, what will pet dogs look like, of the range of exotica, what can you imagine?

Ah, Eugenics. I’ll think about it.

First thought, what if it had been applied before humans came on the scene?

Here’s a different scenario: prospective parents are offered free (or very cheap) gene editing processes to ensure that their child will have very high IQ.

In this situation even stupid parents would surely be bright enough to realise that accepting the offer would very much to the advantage of their child.

Future knowledge and biotechnology may well make this scenario feasible, and if the qualities being selected are genuinely positive, I’m all in favour.

would very much = be

I’m losing due to lack of sleep = words.

transition said:

way back, if you don’t mind thinking back, or more imagining back to an alternate world, resulting in an alternate world now, what if people had to be IQ tested before breeding. Just in case you’re too thick to understand that, it means the creatures with the potential to breed are IQ tested and need pass before a license to breed is issued.

since this is a hypothetical, i’ll not make any suggestions to do with enforcement, or the IQ level needed to be granted a license. It’s possible all the practical stuff to make this work is actually in those things, and in the real world it surely wouldn’t work. Intelligent people wouldn’t let it happen anyway.

in the alternate world I very likely wouldn’t have recombined my DNA, or been here to do that.

granted it’s a perverse contemplation in some ways, it gets nasty in the imposition of the practicalities.

with modern DNA testing there’s probably the added benefit of recombination analysis so the high IQ (potential) couples likely to throw negative outcomes can be discouraged. You see my language there is evolving, Discouraging negative outcomes sounds very practical, commonsense even. I could flip it, and say encouraging positive outcomes, yes, much better.

you could call the idea a selective breeding program, there’s nothing new about it.

humans have been involved in selective breeding going way back, including of their own species, and of humans’ good works there are respectable versions evident in human pet dogs, not all of which were bred for intelligence, some look like they chase parked cars, and there are other canine exotica. Culture is for the satisfaction of human nature, you can see it in pet dogs.

canines though have probably become more diverse (with the selective breeding programs). Humans love diversity.

so the soft nazi lives on in human pet dogs, and racehorses, cattle, sheep, and perhaps even in our wheat and barley etc while i’m indulging thoughts absurd.

anyway, to my questions..

when the human population stabilizes, what will the most powerful selection pressures be, that regulate breeding?

and, what will pet dogs look like, of the range of exotica, what can you imagine?

Not an ‘IQ’ test, but there has been a ‘fitness to survive and breed’ test in place since things started evolving.

I’m not convinced that an IQ test would be an improvement on that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

way back, if you don’t mind thinking back, or more imagining back to an alternate world, resulting in an alternate world now, what if people had to be IQ tested before breeding. Just in case you’re too thick to understand that, it means the creatures with the potential to breed are IQ tested and need pass before a license to breed is issued.

since this is a hypothetical, i’ll not make any suggestions to do with enforcement, or the IQ level needed to be granted a license. It’s possible all the practical stuff to make this work is actually in those things, and in the real world it surely wouldn’t work. Intelligent people wouldn’t let it happen anyway.

in the alternate world I very likely wouldn’t have recombined my DNA, or been here to do that.

granted it’s a perverse contemplation in some ways, it gets nasty in the imposition of the practicalities.

with modern DNA testing there’s probably the added benefit of recombination analysis so the high IQ (potential) couples likely to throw negative outcomes can be discouraged. You see my language there is evolving, Discouraging negative outcomes sounds very practical, commonsense even. I could flip it, and say encouraging positive outcomes, yes, much better.

you could call the idea a selective breeding program, there’s nothing new about it.

humans have been involved in selective breeding going way back, including of their own species, and of humans’ good works there are respectable versions evident in human pet dogs, not all of which were bred for intelligence, some look like they chase parked cars, and there are other canine exotica. Culture is for the satisfaction of human nature, you can see it in pet dogs.

canines though have probably become more diverse (with the selective breeding programs). Humans love diversity.

so the soft nazi lives on in human pet dogs, and racehorses, cattle, sheep, and perhaps even in our wheat and barley etc while i’m indulging thoughts absurd.

anyway, to my questions..

when the human population stabilizes, what will the most powerful selection pressures be, that regulate breeding?

and, what will pet dogs look like, of the range of exotica, what can you imagine?

Not an ‘IQ’ test, but there has been a ‘fitness to survive and breed’ test in place since things started evolving.

I’m not convinced that an IQ test would be an improvement on that.

You think blind cause and effect provides a better recipe for improving human nature than our own highest ideals?

Doesn’t sound very progressive.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not an ‘IQ’ test, but there has been a ‘fitness to survive and breed’ test in place since things started evolving.

I’m not convinced that an IQ test would be an improvement on that.

You think blind cause and effect provides a better recipe for improving human nature than our own highest ideals?

Doesn’t sound very progressive.

Well transition was talking about an IQ test, rather than our highest ideals, but even if the test attempted to measure more generalised and idealised attributes, I’m not sure how successful it would be.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not an ‘IQ’ test, but there has been a ‘fitness to survive and breed’ test in place since things started evolving.

I’m not convinced that an IQ test would be an improvement on that.

You think blind cause and effect provides a better recipe for improving human nature than our own highest ideals?

Doesn’t sound very progressive.

Well transition was talking about an IQ test, rather than our highest ideals, but even if the test attempted to measure more generalised and idealised attributes, I’m not sure how successful it would be.

IQ could mean you are smart but not actually intelligence/wise, lots of smart people with biased views that negatively impact society

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not an ‘IQ’ test, but there has been a ‘fitness to survive and breed’ test in place since things started evolving.

I’m not convinced that an IQ test would be an improvement on that.

You think blind cause and effect provides a better recipe for improving human nature than our own highest ideals?

Doesn’t sound very progressive.

Well transition was talking about an IQ test, rather than our highest ideals, but even if the test attempted to measure more generalised and idealised attributes, I’m not sure how successful it would be.

Fair enough, but I’d envisage future knowledge and biotechnology enabling us to improve the species in many and varied ways.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

You think blind cause and effect provides a better recipe for improving human nature than our own highest ideals?

Doesn’t sound very progressive.

Well transition was talking about an IQ test, rather than our highest ideals, but even if the test attempted to measure more generalised and idealised attributes, I’m not sure how successful it would be.

Fair enough, but I’d envisage future knowledge and biotechnology enabling us to improve the species in many and varied ways.

I think so the worry is an even greater divide between rich and poor unless its available to all.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

You think blind cause and effect provides a better recipe for improving human nature than our own highest ideals?

Doesn’t sound very progressive.

Well transition was talking about an IQ test, rather than our highest ideals, but even if the test attempted to measure more generalised and idealised attributes, I’m not sure how successful it would be.

Fair enough, but I’d envisage future knowledge and biotechnology enabling us to improve the species in many and varied ways.

Well just remember the Douglas Adams tale of the entire non-useless 2/3 of the human race being wiped out by a virulent disease spread by the use of dirty telephones, before you go too far implementing this plan.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well transition was talking about an IQ test, rather than our highest ideals, but even if the test attempted to measure more generalised and idealised attributes, I’m not sure how successful it would be.

Fair enough, but I’d envisage future knowledge and biotechnology enabling us to improve the species in many and varied ways.

Well just remember the Douglas Adams tale of the entire non-useless 2/3 of the human race being wiped out by a virulent disease spread by the use of dirty telephones, before you go too far implementing this plan.

Yes funny how a certain group of people whom godwin a thread thought specialisation breeds superiority when it probably would have resulted in weakness

For example, “fitness to survive and breed” has created a species that in the last century was responsible for around 100,000,000 deaths of its own kind in two world wars.

I’m thinking we can devise a better model of human nature than that, and biotechnology may be essential to helping us create it.

Bubblecar said:

For example, “fitness to survive and breed” has created a species that in the last century was responsible for around 100,000,000 deaths of its own kind in two world wars.

I’m thinking we can devise a better model of human nature than that, and biotechnology may be essential to helping us create it.

I wonder if biotechnology could link people empathically together so we all experience the despair when people die or are killed and we are far less happy to kill people

transition said:

way back, if you don’t mind thinking back, or more imagining back to an alternate world, resulting in an alternate world now, what if people had to be IQ tested before breeding. Just in case you’re too thick to understand that, it means the creatures with the potential to breed are IQ tested and need pass before a license to breed is issued.

since this is a hypothetical, i’ll not make any suggestions to do with enforcement, or the IQ level needed to be granted a license. It’s possible all the practical stuff to make this work is actually in those things, and in the real world it surely wouldn’t work. Intelligent people wouldn’t let it happen anyway.

in the alternate world I very likely wouldn’t have recombined my DNA, or been here to do that.

granted it’s a perverse contemplation in some ways, it gets nasty in the imposition of the practicalities.

with modern DNA testing there’s probably the added benefit of recombination analysis so the high IQ (potential) couples likely to throw negative outcomes can be discouraged. You see my language there is evolving, Discouraging negative outcomes sounds very practical, commonsense even. I could flip it, and say encouraging positive outcomes, yes, much better.

you could call the idea a selective breeding program, there’s nothing new about it.

humans have been involved in selective breeding going way back, including of their own species, and of humans’ good works there are respectable versions evident in human pet dogs, not all of which were bred for intelligence, some look like they chase parked cars, and there are other canine exotica. Culture is for the satisfaction of human nature, you can see it in pet dogs.

canines though have probably become more diverse (with the selective breeding programs). Humans love diversity.

so the soft nazi lives on in human pet dogs, and racehorses, cattle, sheep, and perhaps even in our wheat and barley etc while i’m indulging thoughts absurd.

anyway, to my questions..

when the human population stabilizes, what will the most powerful selection pressures be, that regulate breeding?

and, what will pet dogs look like, of the range of exotica, what can you imagine?

There’s so much to talk about here.

IIRC, everyone now alive carries about 3 deadly recessive mutations in their DNA. In an expanding population this is not a problem. In a static population it is a problem, and a serious one, because sooner or later some descendents carrying these deadly recessive mutations will meet up. Usually later, 230 generations or so, 6,000 years or so, early deaths of people because of deadly mutations will escalate. A long time for someone living now but a short time in the history of mankind.

In a population reducing rapidly in size, the problem is much more severe and has the potential to drive species extinct.

One solution – lets use jargon from the horse and dog breeders – is what’s called line breeding, breeding descendents back together after only a few generations in order to eliminate recessive mutations. But, and here’s the catch, if it works it’s called line breeding, if it fails it’s called inbreeding. With me so far? Successful line breeding reduces the incidence of recessive mutations in the general population to manageable levels.

‘Survival of the fittest’ is an extremely bad social management strategy. For starters, it kills off good genes if the person with those genes happens through bad luck. to have an injury. It’s also particularly nasty to older individuals – they don’t survive.

So, let’s look at Eugenics, and here we come across the dystopian world in the movie GATTACA, named after letters of DNA bases. People are strongly discouraged from reproducing naturally. Where is goes wrong is that quality of character is a mixture of genes and environment, not just genes alone. Further, a combination of genes that is not considered valuable may be more valuable than a combination deliberately selected for. A person with bad genes can be a much better person than one with good genes.

Further, crossbred vigour is the term given to successful organisms that are not line-bred. A classic example is Hercules, the liger. A cross between lion and tiger grows better and bigger than both lion and tiger. I would guess that the same was true of the recently discovered hybrid of Neanderthal and Denisovan. This distant cross-breeding ensures that none of the deleterious recessive mutations in either parent finds a mate in the other parent.

IQ doesn’t work as a selection method for eugenics, but a more generalised intelligence test might work, taking into account such things as ‘asking for help’ and ‘sleeping on it’ and other parts of intelligence that missing from IQ tests. Such would need to be combined with tests for health with the broadest possible definition of health.

I shouldn’t breed, because I have a deadly genetic fault. It doesn’t affect me, but would affect in one way or other 75% of my children.

As for selection pressures at present, and when the population stabilizes:

The dominant selection pressure that I can see is resistance to contraception. Examples include: when physical maturity occurs earlier than full mental maturity, in farming country where there’s plenty of space and the desire to carry on the business to the next generation, alcohol-related issues.

The second most important selection pressure that I can see is alcohol.

The third most important selection pressure is probably the gift of the gab, the ability to charm the birds down out of the trees.

Fourth perhaps, money and hotness.

> what will pet dogs look like, of the range of exotica, what can you imagine?

Hmm. Trends towards short-haired small dogs (easier to care for as living spaces get smaller). Trends towards exotica. Trends away from hunters, which unfortunately has the side effect of trending towards more stupidity and more barking.

The range of exotica. Partly more of the same, bigger smaller faster slower, more congenital abnormalities treated as dog breeds. Fainting dogs, dogs that run around in circles, dogs with fancy tails, dogs that look like cats, frillback dogs, short haired dogs with long hair on their legs, deep-chested dogs, dogs with long necks, dogs with manes like a lion’s, that sort of thing.

Have I covered everything?

>Have I covered everything?

an excellent read, a good chuckle too.

:)

I agree with the Rev. We already have a selective breeding programme; it’s called evolution.

I don’t see how any consciously human-imposed breeding programme could better prepare future humans for reality, than reality itself. Why simulate or second-guess the real world when we can just use the actual real world as the filter? Throw future generations at it and see what sticks.

And IQ in particular is a terribly crude measure of worth. Even if it does measure general “intelligence”, which it probably doesn’t, there are myriad worthwhile characteristics it doesn’t measure. Do we want more high IQ people at the risk of also having more psychopaths, or more genetic diseases, or more autism or any of a number of possible unforseen negative side effects? High IQ is already correlated with increased levels of mental health problems – do we want more people with bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia and so on? Human breeding programmes on pet animals have not worked so well after all.

I’ll stick to the current methods thanks.

>I’ll stick to the current methods thanks.

joy in the reality most of the natural world has low or no intelligence, fortunately.

transition said:

>I’ll stick to the current methods thanks.

joy in the reality most of the natural world has low or no intelligence, fortunately.

well, as measured by (human) tests

it’d be, and’s possibly prevalent, to consider human intelligence to be the height of the self-ordering forces (structures evolved), local in the universe humans can see anyway.

transition said:

>I’ll stick to the current methods thanks.

joy in the reality most of the natural world has low or no intelligence, fortunately.

They have intelligence, but suited to what they might encounter in their lives. Most lack the ability to change things other than by what they use for attack or self-defense. It is very arrogant to judge other organisms by your own subjective experiences. You were born with apposed thumbs giving you the ability to make tools, which through the ages made you what you are, therefore due to this restriction their mental development was restricted, yet still suited to their life style.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>I’ll stick to the current methods thanks.

joy in the reality most of the natural world has low or no intelligence, fortunately.

They have intelligence, but suited to what they might encounter in their lives. Most lack the ability to change things other than by what they use for attack or self-defense. It is very arrogant to judge other organisms by your own subjective experiences. You were born with apposed thumbs giving you the ability to make tools, which through the ages made you what you are, therefore due to this restriction their mental development was restricted, yet still suited to their life style.

was thinking like gravity, and stuff, too

apparently no intelligence at all, none

Kothos said:

I agree with the Rev. We already have a selective breeding programme; it’s called evolution.

I don’t see how any consciously human-imposed breeding programme could better prepare future humans for reality, than reality itself. Why simulate or second-guess the real world when we can just use the actual real world as the filter? Throw future generations at it and see what sticks.

And IQ in particular is a terribly crude measure of worth. Even if it does measure general “intelligence”, which it probably doesn’t, there are myriad worthwhile characteristics it doesn’t measure. Do we want more high IQ people at the risk of also having more psychopaths, or more genetic diseases, or more autism or any of a number of possible unforseen negative side effects? High IQ is already correlated with increased levels of mental health problems – do we want more people with bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia and so on? Human breeding programmes on pet animals have not worked so well after all.

I’ll stick to the current methods thanks.

Does that “current methods” include the Chinese one child policy?

Chinese people had to put in a specific application to have more than one child including an interview, an application that included job descriptions of both parents. Discriminating on the basis of employment status would actually be better than discriminating on the basis of IQ tests.

Immigration / emigration laws also currently discriminate. In a way that may be considered a mild form of eugenics. Is that included in “current methods”.

mollwollfumble said:

Kothos said:

I agree with the Rev. We already have a selective breeding programme; it’s called evolution.

I don’t see how any consciously human-imposed breeding programme could better prepare future humans for reality, than reality itself. Why simulate or second-guess the real world when we can just use the actual real world as the filter? Throw future generations at it and see what sticks.

And IQ in particular is a terribly crude measure of worth. Even if it does measure general “intelligence”, which it probably doesn’t, there are myriad worthwhile characteristics it doesn’t measure. Do we want more high IQ people at the risk of also having more psychopaths, or more genetic diseases, or more autism or any of a number of possible unforseen negative side effects? High IQ is already correlated with increased levels of mental health problems – do we want more people with bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia and so on? Human breeding programmes on pet animals have not worked so well after all.

I’ll stick to the current methods thanks.

Does that “current methods” include the Chinese one child policy?

Chinese people had to put in a specific application to have more than one child including an interview, an application that included job descriptions of both parents. Discriminating on the basis of employment status would actually be better than discriminating on the basis of IQ tests.

Immigration / emigration laws also currently discriminate. In a way that may be considered a mild form of eugenics. Is that included in “current methods”.

By “current method” I was referring to evolution-and-natural-selection. Eugenics by proxy is always going to be unavoidable since people are always going to have to judge each other.

Kothos said:

mollwollfumble said:

Kothos said:

I agree with the Rev. We already have a selective breeding programme; it’s called evolution.

I don’t see how any consciously human-imposed breeding programme could better prepare future humans for reality, than reality itself. Why simulate or second-guess the real world when we can just use the actual real world as the filter? Throw future generations at it and see what sticks.

And IQ in particular is a terribly crude measure of worth. Even if it does measure general “intelligence”, which it probably doesn’t, there are myriad worthwhile characteristics it doesn’t measure. Do we want more high IQ people at the risk of also having more psychopaths, or more genetic diseases, or more autism or any of a number of possible unforseen negative side effects? High IQ is already correlated with increased levels of mental health problems – do we want more people with bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia and so on? Human breeding programmes on pet animals have not worked so well after all.

I’ll stick to the current methods thanks.

Does that “current methods” include the Chinese one child policy?

Chinese people had to put in a specific application to have more than one child including an interview, an application that included job descriptions of both parents. Discriminating on the basis of employment status would actually be better than discriminating on the basis of IQ tests.

Immigration / emigration laws also currently discriminate. In a way that may be considered a mild form of eugenics. Is that included in “current methods”.

By “current method” I was referring to evolution-and-natural-selection. Eugenics by proxy is always going to be unavoidable since people are always going to have to judge each other.

Presumably in other organisms as well.