[frgtpsswrdlame]

I don't think members of the American underclass are genetically less intelligent. I think the implication that if we could just manipulate the genes of the poor then the wouldn't be poor anymore ignores a million non-biological reasons why poverty perpetuates itself along family lines.

[justin_vanw]

COMMENT REMOVED

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>Yes of course you are right, but intelligence is more correlated with income today than it was in 1850, and more correlated in 1850 than in 1750, and so on.

Is it? I'm not sure I believe that.

>At one point in history it really didn't matter much how smart you were (it helped you survive but it didn't make you upwardly mobile), it only mattered who your father was.

It doesn't matter who your father is today? Of course it matters! A huge amount, I'd say your upbringing plays a more important role than your genetic lottery even today.

>If the graph of education vs income is flat and then jumps as a step function at some magical 'employable' education level, then the education->income gradient that currently provides an incentive goes away for most people.

I'm not sure it provides that much of an incentive to that many people. People still get liberal art degrees even though compensation in other programs would pay off better. Hell there's plenty of fields where going for a PhD vs. sticking with the BS doesn't even increase your lifetime earnings and yet people pour into those programs as well. Education has a pull in it's own right, not just as a tool to achieve a higher income.

I also don't see why a step function is less incentivizing than a gradient, you could make an argument that it's even more incentivizing in that there's no reward for going half-way. Of course I think the real answer is that the distribution won't matter.

And I think our society today is a lot closer to say a graph with two or three steps than it is to any sort of smooth upward climb.

And then your solution to the problem of the poors dictating democracy is that we propagandize them into some voluntary but coerced eugenics program until we reach such a point where we can use genetic technology to remove whatever gene(s) it is that make them poor.

It's honestly one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this board in it's ethical ideas, it's biological ideas, it's ideas about the basis of poverty, everything. This is why I decry the malignment of the liberal arts, CS programs are pumping out people like you who are desperately in need of Ethics 101.

[justin_vanw]

I'm removing my comments since apparently engaging in a thought experiment makes me an inhuman monster.

I don't have a CS degree and I'm fairly well versed in philosophy. I suggest you take a closer look at your assumptions, it may be that you can't get to the truth entirely by quoting Gould.

Frankly it astonishes me that you don't accept that income is more correlated to intelligence today than it was when a large percentage of the population were slaves, or when people were legally bound to the land they lived on? Are you just disagreeing with everything I say out of reflex?

[shkkmo]

I can't see what arguments you made as you've papered over everything. I've had to infer a lot.

> Frankly it astonishes me that you don't accept that income is more correlated to intelligence today than it was when a large percentage of the population were slaves, or when people were legally bound to the land they lived on?

That may be true. It is, however, irrelevant for three reasons: 1) intelligence is still not the dominant factor when it comes to income. 2) Even if intelligence were the dominant factor in predicting income, that wouldn't mean that poverty itself is caused by having too many stupid people. 3) The rate of genetic change due to any such program would be so slow as to be meaningless on the timeframes we need to measure the results in.

I think needlessly bringing up genetics sunk the ability for people to consider your idea, which is actually fairly mainstream.

Your idea bears consideration. Not because it would have much of an impact genetically, but because it could have an impact demographically. Since the largest predictor of income is your parents SES, decreasing the proportion of children born to low SES parents could itself have positive impacts as fewer children need to face the challenges of growing up poor.

Indeed, many have argued that the legalization of abortion had exactly this type of effect: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/-what-e...

Beyond just fewer kids growing up poor, propoganda/education supporting family planning and access to birth control/abortion can directly improve the future income potential of poor women. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/contraceptio...

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>I'm removing my comments since apparently engaging in a thought experiment makes me an inhuman monster.

You really shouldn't use this cop out. I understand your fear of future employers reading what you've written here but if you have the gall to say that poverty is genetic and we should encourage the poor not to procreate at least have the gall to stand behind it.

[justin_vanw]

I certainly never said either of those things, but this is a great example of why I removed the comments. If some wondering about a hypothetical future dystopia offend you this much it tells me that the thought police might come after me, so is it worth it to participate in a discussion with people like you?

[frgtpsswrdlame]

We both know that you weren't 'wondering about a hypothetical future dystopia' you were talking about your sincere beliefs. Only that once those beliefs came into the light they looked really ugly, so you've stashed them away again and are pretending it's not what you really think. Come on. You think poverty is mostly genetic and that rich people are, on average, genetically superior. You think once capitalism begins to come a bit undone the poors are going to start breeding like rabbits. You think that's super bad so we need to use government propaganda to get them to stop breeding. You think once we reach a certain point of genetic technology we'll be able to remove all the poor genes and no one will be poor anymore. If you'd left your comments up it'd be clear that this was no thought experiment and you're just backpedaling. I'd much rather see you change your beliefs than whining about the 'thought police' when someone calls out your poverty-essentialism and eugenical ideas.