Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rocklobster who wrote (80727)	12/5/2000 1:21:43 AM
From: CpsOmis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

Rock....the bottom line that no one has the guts to address is...Is the research valid? and Is it true? To say, as the thesis of the "Bell curve" states, that social success comes from intelligence which is based on genetics is, to me an obvious truth. It certainly fits my observation. The point or problem in addressing in public policy and discourse the concept of genetically based superiority/inferiority is NOT whether or not it exists, it is HOW TO DEAL WITH its existence. The main problem is the "slippery social/political slope" such a discussion creates. It opens a Pandoras box, a 'dangerous' thesis that our civilization can not handle discussing in a mass scale. It is best left to an elite intellectual orthodoxy, not for mass public consumption. Our generation has forgotten the little problem the world had with 'Eugenics' and the Nazis. Addressing genetically based superiority/inferiority in the environment of our current culture opens up an extremely dangerous world. By definition, when one addresses "genetic differences" or "eugenics type breeding" one must following a 'scientific' approach occurs in more or less godless world model. Then, what follows is, who is allowed to be god? Our egos do not permit ourselves to consider ourselves inferior easily. In the case of the Nazis and the eugenics movement, god was the one with the bigger and better weapons. It is empirically (sp) obvious to anyone with eyes to see that there are clear gradiations in physical and intellectual talent from person to person. To then make broadly based conclusions to certain genetic classes, is not too hard either. You can certainly show statistical differences between ANY populations if you choose the attributes. Any of the white guys on the board want to address why the black guys often get some of the best looking chicks? (VBG) But to actually study these differences requires one to pull from genetic pools. I submit that these 'pools' vary due to the unique ACTUAL as well as GENETIC histories of the populations, and are so complex and interwoven as to be immeasurable. For example, to study Asians, are we going to look at the farmer back in China, or the many Chinese that came to America to escape death in the 'Cultural Revolution'. (the intellectual elite) You've got a perfect example here of 'natural selection' in that the smartest Chinese got away w/ their lives and came here. Ditto w/ Vietnamese. Remember, the genetic history here of the descendants of slaves is of those that "GOT CAUGHT" so to speak...not the 'bright ones'. An ugly yet true fact is that the more intelligent genetic population of negroes in the world probably won't be found in the descendants of slaves. (the question that remains is...how much of a difference is there really? And, what other attributes are different? ) So, when doing a "scientific" analysis, one has to seriously look at the populations one is drawing from on a global scale. If you want to be intellectually honest, one must address the concept of 'cultural Darwinism', where the fittest dominate. There has been a process of natural selection in America, where the best and brightest, more risk-taking oriented people came here. (the ones who came by choice) I would venture it would be an intriguing study if you could follow the descendants of white slaves that came here. (Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, anyone? VBG) It could be argued that the gene pool that was smart, brave and agile enough to come here is one of larger reasons we in the USA hold such a position of dominance in the world. (Who got all of the German scientists after WWII? How did that contribute to the wealth of our country? Plastics? anyone?) If we ignore religious beliefs, it is quite simple to draw the conclusion that, if we can breed traits in and out of other species of animals, it certainly can be done with humans. Wasn't it Jimmy the Greek who got thrown off television for addressing this truth? I believe he alluded to the ugly truth that negro slaves were bred for strength. A truth that came out of the Nazi eugenics movement is that some of the Nazi experiments with breeding showed enormous promise. In one case, certain types of cancers were ALMOST COMPLETELY BRED OUT OF THE GERMAN POPULATION.....This based on research presented very apologetically on a PBS based show I saw a few years back dealing with the German experiment. Another situation where "breeding" effected the gene pool ocurred due to 'in-breeding' amongst certain eastern European elites. A disease, a genetic pre-disposition towards 'vampirism' became strongly bred into a particular group. I saw a fascinating PBS show on that as well. There actually is a genetic disorder which creates a situation where a short exposure to the sun creates a painful sun-burn to the person. We are talking a couple of minutes here. The drinking of blood had some kind of anti-body which brought relief. More to it, but can't remember. Now, if one accepts the argument that 'social Darwinism' occurs, to a point in both positive and negative ways, and that there are direct reflections of the 'past' in specific populations today, a logical conclusion that can be drawn from reviewing what is going on now in the USA... The current situation, where the intelligent elite are being worked to death and are taxed to the point where they foregoe children while the lower intellect underclass has been subsidized to breed has a very direct effect on the 'gene pool'. Just as the Nazis bred out cancer by not allowing people of a particular genetic history to have children, our socialist culture which subsidizes the weak has its own effect as well... The bottom line is how we view our fellow man. The religious model that we are all god's children worthy of the same amount of love has worked well for a long time. For those that get comfort following a religious world view, no furthur discussion is needed. Just take care of those less fortunate or able, help those that want to help themselves, and practice "compassionate conservatism" and let those who follow self-destructive lives to wallow in their pain if they aren't willing to help themselves. However, a model for an increasingly atheistic culture needs to be drawn up to deal with the realities the "Bell Curve" suggests. If the playing field is not fair because the skill sets between players are not equal (which is apparent to those with eyes) our society must deal with this in an equitable way. To not do so is to keep mankind entrenched in the wars and rumors of wars we have fought throughout history between ourselves and those that are genetically different. I can still remember reading a Time magazine article from the 40's describing the Japanese and how they acted something slightly above chimpanzees....then there was the demonization of the american indians, and on and on it goes.... I think the first step is to address the truth, whatever it is, and then seek equity based on contributions to society. We can be different without looking down on one another. Lest we dwell to hard on such thoughts, I go back to my original thought, that to dwell on these issues too much is to go down a slippery slope that our fragile human egos react to with anger and resentment. The very thing that breeds wars and rumors of wars. Ya got me going on this one!!!!!!!! Cosmo