Thread: Overpopulation

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Look as long as whatever parameters you want to use to weed people out of the genepool extends to the jews, I'm on board.

Intelligent people are generally a benefit to the rest of the population. It's not as arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It's true dude. Srsly.

ok.... duude

Originally Posted by tommo

Intelligent people are generally a benefit to the rest of the population. It's not as arbitrary.

Yes it is... what parameters would you judge intelligent people by?

I don't know. You'd have an IQ test, obv. Then maybe some other day-to-day tests, where someone monitors you.
Ideally we could find the genes for intelligence and just screen people.

Err yeah some very murky waters here. Although hardly anybody in academia will talk about it for political reasons, it seems pretty conclusive that there are some significant correlations between race and IQ. Ashkenazi Jews for instance seem to have an unusually high mean IQ, and they are very overrepresented within influential academics. Asians are higher on average than Europeans, Europeans than Africans, and native Australians really are pretty low.

My point is that by selecting for high IQ you will necessarily select against some races.

Got any sources for those claims?

Originally Posted by tommo

Got any sources for those claims?

I can't be certain for it was a long time ago, but I believe Stephen Jay Gould tackles this IQ thing and race. People don't like it though, obviously, for if intelligent = good, and unintelligent = bad, then a race that is less intelligent than another will thereby be 'bad' in contrast to the 'good'. Thus we'll divide people rather than unify them.

I'm not putting my opinion here, nor whether IQ is a decent assessment of 'functional intelligence' or 'valuable aptitude'. Check out his work and others. ^_^




Whilst Xei remarks that truth alone cannot be a bad thing in and of itself... that we shouldn't shy away from truth, for it is indifferent and non-judgmental. It just is. And it's what we do with it that matters - it's not that simple... we can't get the truth and then just choose to keep it separated from the grander moral implications and consequences of it. I say, if the answer you seek has no decent purpose, then there's no valid rationale for undertaking a task.

Why would one seek for racial disparities in biological intelligence? Yes, we should be confident and accept the truth (easy to say), but when it by nature divides humans, into a sort of superior-inferior dichotomy, what do you expect? Sometimes morality should stop science.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Whilst Xei remarks that truth alone cannot be a bad thing in and of itself... that we shouldn't shy away from truth, for it is indifferent and non-judgmental. It just is. And it's what we do with it that matters - it's not that simple... we can't get the truth and then just choose to keep it separated from the grander moral implications and consequences of it. I say, if the answer you seek has no decent purpose, then there's no valid rationale for undertaking a task.

Why would one seek for racial disparities in biological intelligence? Yes, we should be confident and accept the truth (easy to say), but when it by nature divides humans, into a sort of superior-inferior dichotomy, what do you expect? Sometimes morality should stop science.

There are uses for almost all of the data we have collected over the years using science. It may seem trivial at first, but it can almost always be put to use.
I can't think of any specific examples, maybe it could help us study how intelligence arose, or learn how certain factors affect it, or which areas of the brain create it and which of those is more advanced in certain people.
On and on.