Discussion:
Jeff's ustopian* world
Add Reply
islander
2020-06-16 14:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994 book
*The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on intelligence and
class structure. These arguments usually stray into the question of
whether or not intelligence is inherited or influenced by the
environment, a nature vs. nurture argument. Hernstein and Murray
contend that blacks statistically have a mean IQ that is 15 points below
the mean for the whole population and "is a better predictor of many
personal outcomes including financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime than an individual's parental
socioeconomic status." They also suggest that this difference between a
"cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence should be used to
shape public policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by removing
race from the argument.

Should we, for example, define programs where people of statistically
lower IQ be given special consideration in their lives as pertains to
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement
in crime? An example closer to positions that Jeff has argued might
include preventing the immigration of people who compete for jobs
requiring manual skills and lower intelligence?

Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we acknowledge a
class structure including one class for which we have low expectations
and another class who can be expected to be the most successful, the
movers and shakers, the most innovative and the most beneficial to
society? Should we design our schools to give this latter class the
best and most expensive education? Should we decide to emphasize manual
skills and sports for those for whom we have lower expectations. Should
our housing, our jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law
enforcement be designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?

If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each category
at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those who deserve
the best housing, the higher incomes, the most creative, and the most
likely to not engage in crime? If only we could tell at birth, wouldn't
we favor those who are more intelligent, even if that was at the expense
of those for whom we have lower expectations? Are we justified in
discriminating against them?

Is that a world that we want? How far would we expect this distinction
to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human rights? Haven't
we seen this before?

*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
Johnny
2020-06-16 14:20:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:13:36 -0700
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994
book *The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on
intelligence and class structure. These arguments usually stray into
the question of whether or not intelligence is inherited or
influenced by the environment, a nature vs. nurture argument.
Hernstein and Murray contend that blacks statistically have a mean IQ
that is 15 points below the mean for the whole population and "is a
better predictor of many personal outcomes including financial
income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in
crime than an individual's parental socioeconomic status." They also
suggest that this difference between a "cognitive elite" and people
with lower intelligence should be used to shape public policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by
removing race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of statistically
lower IQ be given special consideration in their lives as pertains to
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and
involvement in crime? An example closer to positions that Jeff has
argued might include preventing the immigration of people who compete
for jobs requiring manual skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we acknowledge
a class structure including one class for which we have low
expectations and another class who can be expected to be the most
successful, the movers and shakers, the most innovative and the most
beneficial to society? Should we design our schools to give this
latter class the best and most expensive education? Should we decide
to emphasize manual skills and sports for those for whom we have
lower expectations. Should our housing, our jobs, our sexual
reproduction policies, our law enforcement be designed to favor
policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each
category at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those
who deserve the best housing, the higher incomes, the most creative,
and the most likely to not engage in crime? If only we could tell at
birth, wouldn't we favor those who are more intelligent, even if that
was at the expense of those for whom we have lower expectations? Are
we justified in discriminating against them?
Is that a world that we want? How far would we expect this
distinction to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human
rights? Haven't we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
How do you like the world we live in right now?
islander
2020-06-18 13:50:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:13:36 -0700
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994
book *The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on
intelligence and class structure. These arguments usually stray into
the question of whether or not intelligence is inherited or
influenced by the environment, a nature vs. nurture argument.
Hernstein and Murray contend that blacks statistically have a mean IQ
that is 15 points below the mean for the whole population and "is a
better predictor of many personal outcomes including financial
income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in
crime than an individual's parental socioeconomic status." They also
suggest that this difference between a "cognitive elite" and people
with lower intelligence should be used to shape public policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by
removing race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of statistically
lower IQ be given special consideration in their lives as pertains to
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and
involvement in crime? An example closer to positions that Jeff has
argued might include preventing the immigration of people who compete
for jobs requiring manual skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we acknowledge
a class structure including one class for which we have low
expectations and another class who can be expected to be the most
successful, the movers and shakers, the most innovative and the most
beneficial to society? Should we design our schools to give this
latter class the best and most expensive education? Should we decide
to emphasize manual skills and sports for those for whom we have
lower expectations. Should our housing, our jobs, our sexual
reproduction policies, our law enforcement be designed to favor
policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each
category at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those
who deserve the best housing, the higher incomes, the most creative,
and the most likely to not engage in crime? If only we could tell at
birth, wouldn't we favor those who are more intelligent, even if that
was at the expense of those for whom we have lower expectations? Are
we justified in discriminating against them?
Is that a world that we want? How far would we expect this
distinction to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human
rights? Haven't we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
How do you like the world we live in right now?
Not too long ago, I commented favorably on the latest book by Steven
Pinker, *Enlightenment Now* which I described as an optimistic view of
progress over the centuries to implement the basic principles of the
Enlightenment. The problem that I have with the world right now is that
we are losing ground in the march toward those ideals.
Johnny
2020-06-18 14:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:50:26 -0700
Post by islander
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:13:36 -0700
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994
book *The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on
intelligence and class structure. These arguments usually stray
into the question of whether or not intelligence is inherited or
influenced by the environment, a nature vs. nurture argument.
Hernstein and Murray contend that blacks statistically have a mean
IQ that is 15 points below the mean for the whole population and
"is a better predictor of many personal outcomes including
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and
involvement in crime than an individual's parental socioeconomic
status." They also suggest that this difference between a
"cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence should be
used to shape public policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by
removing race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of
statistically lower IQ be given special consideration in their
lives as pertains to financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime? An example closer to
positions that Jeff has argued might include preventing the
immigration of people who compete for jobs requiring manual skills
and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we
acknowledge a class structure including one class for which we
have low expectations and another class who can be expected to be
the most successful, the movers and shakers, the most innovative
and the most beneficial to society? Should we design our schools
to give this latter class the best and most expensive education?
Should we decide to emphasize manual skills and sports for those
for whom we have lower expectations. Should our housing, our
jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law enforcement be
designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each
category at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those
who deserve the best housing, the higher incomes, the most
creative, and the most likely to not engage in crime? If only we
could tell at birth, wouldn't we favor those who are more
intelligent, even if that was at the expense of those for whom we
have lower expectations? Are we justified in discriminating
against them?
Is that a world that we want? How far would we expect this
distinction to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human
rights? Haven't we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
How do you like the world we live in right now?
Not too long ago, I commented favorably on the latest book by Steven
Pinker, *Enlightenment Now* which I described as an optimistic view
of progress over the centuries to implement the basic principles of
the Enlightenment. The problem that I have with the world right now
is that we are losing ground in the march toward those ideals.
Whose fault do you think that is?

In my opinion, the people that riot instead of giving the law a chance
to work are the cause.
islander
2020-06-19 18:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:50:26 -0700
Post by islander
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:13:36 -0700
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994
book *The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on
intelligence and class structure. These arguments usually stray
into the question of whether or not intelligence is inherited or
influenced by the environment, a nature vs. nurture argument.
Hernstein and Murray contend that blacks statistically have a mean
IQ that is 15 points below the mean for the whole population and
"is a better predictor of many personal outcomes including
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and
involvement in crime than an individual's parental socioeconomic
status." They also suggest that this difference between a
"cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence should be
used to shape public policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by
removing race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of
statistically lower IQ be given special consideration in their
lives as pertains to financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime? An example closer to
positions that Jeff has argued might include preventing the
immigration of people who compete for jobs requiring manual skills
and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we
acknowledge a class structure including one class for which we
have low expectations and another class who can be expected to be
the most successful, the movers and shakers, the most innovative
and the most beneficial to society? Should we design our schools
to give this latter class the best and most expensive education?
Should we decide to emphasize manual skills and sports for those
for whom we have lower expectations. Should our housing, our
jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law enforcement be
designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each
category at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those
who deserve the best housing, the higher incomes, the most
creative, and the most likely to not engage in crime? If only we
could tell at birth, wouldn't we favor those who are more
intelligent, even if that was at the expense of those for whom we
have lower expectations? Are we justified in discriminating
against them?
Is that a world that we want? How far would we expect this
distinction to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human
rights? Haven't we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
How do you like the world we live in right now?
Not too long ago, I commented favorably on the latest book by Steven
Pinker, *Enlightenment Now* which I described as an optimistic view
of progress over the centuries to implement the basic principles of
the Enlightenment. The problem that I have with the world right now
is that we are losing ground in the march toward those ideals.
Whose fault do you think that is?
In my opinion, the people that riot instead of giving the law a chance
to work are the cause.
Nearly all advances on social issues were brought to the nation's
attention and motivated change. Child labor, social security, women's
rights, Vietnam, exploitation of vets in the '30s, civil rights in the
'60s, gay rights, and more. It was not always peaceful because there
are individuals who will always suffer from testosterone poisoning.
Johnny
2020-06-19 18:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:10:58 -0700
Post by islander
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:50:26 -0700
Post by islander
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:13:36 -0700
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial
1994 book *The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on
intelligence and class structure. These arguments usually stray
into the question of whether or not intelligence is inherited or
influenced by the environment, a nature vs. nurture argument.
Hernstein and Murray contend that blacks statistically have a
mean IQ that is 15 points below the mean for the whole
population and "is a better predictor of many personal outcomes
including financial income, job performance, birth out of
wedlock, and involvement in crime than an individual's parental
socioeconomic status." They also suggest that this difference
between a "cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence
should be used to shape public policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by
removing race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of
statistically lower IQ be given special consideration in their
lives as pertains to financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime? An example closer to
positions that Jeff has argued might include preventing the
immigration of people who compete for jobs requiring manual
skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we
acknowledge a class structure including one class for which we
have low expectations and another class who can be expected to be
the most successful, the movers and shakers, the most innovative
and the most beneficial to society? Should we design our schools
to give this latter class the best and most expensive education?
Should we decide to emphasize manual skills and sports for those
for whom we have lower expectations. Should our housing, our
jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law enforcement be
designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each
category at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor
those who deserve the best housing, the higher incomes, the most
creative, and the most likely to not engage in crime? If only we
could tell at birth, wouldn't we favor those who are more
intelligent, even if that was at the expense of those for whom we
have lower expectations? Are we justified in discriminating
against them?
Is that a world that we want? How far would we expect this
distinction to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human
rights? Haven't we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the
words utopia and dystopia.
How do you like the world we live in right now?
Not too long ago, I commented favorably on the latest book by
Steven Pinker, *Enlightenment Now* which I described as an
optimistic view of progress over the centuries to implement the
basic principles of the Enlightenment. The problem that I have
with the world right now is that we are losing ground in the march
toward those ideals.
Whose fault do you think that is?
In my opinion, the people that riot instead of giving the law a
chance to work are the cause.
Nearly all advances on social issues were brought to the nation's
attention and motivated change. Child labor, social security,
women's rights, Vietnam, exploitation of vets in the '30s, civil
rights in the '60s, gay rights, and more. It was not always peaceful
because there are individuals who will always suffer from
testosterone poisoning.
I don't think these people are helping their cause. There have been
cases of people being attacked just because they are white. The people
doing this don't ask the person if they support Black Lives Matter,
they just attack. It could happen to you if you are white and a
liberal.

I'm sure you would understand why it happened and wouldn't hold any hard
feelings.
El Castor
2020-06-20 06:25:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:10:58 -0700
Post by islander
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:50:26 -0700
Post by islander
Post by Johnny
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:13:36 -0700
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial
1994 book *The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on
intelligence and class structure. These arguments usually stray
into the question of whether or not intelligence is inherited or
influenced by the environment, a nature vs. nurture argument.
Hernstein and Murray contend that blacks statistically have a
mean IQ that is 15 points below the mean for the whole
population and "is a better predictor of many personal outcomes
including financial income, job performance, birth out of
wedlock, and involvement in crime than an individual's parental
socioeconomic status." They also suggest that this difference
between a "cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence
should be used to shape public policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by
removing race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of
statistically lower IQ be given special consideration in their
lives as pertains to financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime? An example closer to
positions that Jeff has argued might include preventing the
immigration of people who compete for jobs requiring manual
skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we
acknowledge a class structure including one class for which we
have low expectations and another class who can be expected to be
the most successful, the movers and shakers, the most innovative
and the most beneficial to society? Should we design our schools
to give this latter class the best and most expensive education?
Should we decide to emphasize manual skills and sports for those
for whom we have lower expectations. Should our housing, our
jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law enforcement be
designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each
category at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor
those who deserve the best housing, the higher incomes, the most
creative, and the most likely to not engage in crime? If only we
could tell at birth, wouldn't we favor those who are more
intelligent, even if that was at the expense of those for whom we
have lower expectations? Are we justified in discriminating
against them?
Is that a world that we want? How far would we expect this
distinction to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human
rights? Haven't we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the
words utopia and dystopia.
How do you like the world we live in right now?
Not too long ago, I commented favorably on the latest book by
Steven Pinker, *Enlightenment Now* which I described as an
optimistic view of progress over the centuries to implement the
basic principles of the Enlightenment. The problem that I have
with the world right now is that we are losing ground in the march
toward those ideals.
Whose fault do you think that is?
In my opinion, the people that riot instead of giving the law a
chance to work are the cause.
Nearly all advances on social issues were brought to the nation's
attention and motivated change. Child labor, social security,
women's rights, Vietnam, exploitation of vets in the '30s, civil
rights in the '60s, gay rights, and more. It was not always peaceful
because there are individuals who will always suffer from
testosterone poisoning.
I don't think these people are helping their cause. There have been
cases of people being attacked just because they are white. The people
doing this don't ask the person if they support Black Lives Matter,
they just attack. It could happen to you if you are white and a
liberal.
I'm sure you would understand why it happened and wouldn't hold any hard
feelings.
I expect it's mainly millenials and their cousins. I doubt it's really
all about race. That age group seems to lean strongly to the Left. For
them, socialism makes a lot of sense. Racism and masks are a
convenient excuse to rebel. If Trump is re-elected, it will be back to
the streets. Either way, the Squad may be in our future.

El Castor
2020-06-16 19:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994 book
*The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on intelligence and
class structure. These arguments usually stray into the question of
whether or not intelligence is inherited or influenced by the
environment, a nature vs. nurture argument. Hernstein and Murray
contend that blacks statistically have a mean IQ that is 15 points below
the mean for the whole population and "is a better predictor of many
personal outcomes including financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime than an individual's parental
socioeconomic status." They also suggest that this difference between a
"cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence should be used to
shape public policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by removing
race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of statistically
lower IQ be given special consideration in their lives as pertains to
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement
in crime? An example closer to positions that Jeff has argued might
include preventing the immigration of people who compete for jobs
requiring manual skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we acknowledge a
class structure including one class for which we have low expectations
and another class who can be expected to be the most successful, the
movers and shakers, the most innovative and the most beneficial to
society? Should we design our schools to give this latter class the
best and most expensive education? Should we decide to emphasize manual
skills and sports for those for whom we have lower expectations. Should
our housing, our jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law
enforcement be designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each category
at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those who deserve
the best housing, the higher incomes, the most creative, and the most
likely to not engage in crime? If only we could tell at birth, wouldn't
we favor those who are more intelligent, even if that was at the expense
of those for whom we have lower expectations? Are we justified in
discriminating against them?
Is that a world that we want?
How far would we expect this distinction
to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human rights? Haven't
we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
In the not too distant future we will be able to genetically engineer
our reproductive process to eliminate genetic disease and produce
healthier, more intelligent offspring. Those children of the future
will no doubt still be unequal in many respects, but radical
inequality should be greatly reduced or eliminated. This process will
be costly and may initially be available only to the very rich. Should
it be limited to the rich? Absolutely not, and I hope it never is.

On the other hand, science at this very moment is cloning horses,
exact duplicates, and has been for ten years. Ethics aside, cloning of
humans is just as possible and could produce a society of absolute
uniformity and equality. Should that be a goal?

But for now, in the year 2020, the reality is that human biology is by
it's nature highly unequal. Homo sapiens were not all cast from the
same mold and that is not going to change in the lifetime of any
member of this group.
islander
2020-06-18 13:50:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994 book
*The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on intelligence and
class structure. These arguments usually stray into the question of
whether or not intelligence is inherited or influenced by the
environment, a nature vs. nurture argument. Hernstein and Murray
contend that blacks statistically have a mean IQ that is 15 points below
the mean for the whole population and "is a better predictor of many
personal outcomes including financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime than an individual's parental
socioeconomic status." They also suggest that this difference between a
"cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence should be used to
shape public policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by removing
race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of statistically
lower IQ be given special consideration in their lives as pertains to
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement
in crime? An example closer to positions that Jeff has argued might
include preventing the immigration of people who compete for jobs
requiring manual skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we acknowledge a
class structure including one class for which we have low expectations
and another class who can be expected to be the most successful, the
movers and shakers, the most innovative and the most beneficial to
society? Should we design our schools to give this latter class the
best and most expensive education? Should we decide to emphasize manual
skills and sports for those for whom we have lower expectations. Should
our housing, our jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law
enforcement be designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each category
at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those who deserve
the best housing, the higher incomes, the most creative, and the most
likely to not engage in crime? If only we could tell at birth, wouldn't
we favor those who are more intelligent, even if that was at the expense
of those for whom we have lower expectations? Are we justified in
discriminating against them?
Is that a world that we want?
How far would we expect this distinction
to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human rights? Haven't
we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
In the not too distant future we will be able to genetically engineer
our reproductive process to eliminate genetic disease and produce
healthier, more intelligent offspring. Those children of the future
will no doubt still be unequal in many respects, but radical
inequality should be greatly reduced or eliminated. This process will
be costly and may initially be available only to the very rich. Should
it be limited to the rich? Absolutely not, and I hope it never is.
On the other hand, science at this very moment is cloning horses,
exact duplicates, and has been for ten years. Ethics aside, cloning of
humans is just as possible and could produce a society of absolute
uniformity and equality. Should that be a goal?
But for now, in the year 2020, the reality is that human biology is by
it's nature highly unequal. Homo sapiens were not all cast from the
same mold and that is not going to change in the lifetime of any
member of this group.
For a conservative, your vision of a possible future faces a tough
uphill battle unless the Republican party changes dramatically. I'm
sure that you will agree that there is a big difference between
uniformity and equality. Personally, I have the same concerns about
cloning that I have about GMO. We know from evolution that it is
diversity that protects species from extinction. For example, the
effort to optimize yield of grain species results in a narrowing of our
dependence, raising risk that this important food supply is threatened
by a single disease. Without genetic diversity, our ability to recover
is limited by availability of seed stock that exhibits resistance to the
disease. There are many other examples of this in biology. Are you
prepared to expect that we can develop alternative genetic pools in time
to avoid a pandemic?

Then, there is the motive to control markets in an increasing
non-competitive corporate world. Consider the case of Monsanto,
criticized for selling seed stock that produces grain that cannot
reproduce. This assures that farmers become captive to an increasingly
narrow source of seed. 80% of the corn seed market is owned by only 4
companies, for example. This problem is most pronounced in developing
countries where reliance on native seed stock is reduced as farmers
increasingly dependent upon one or a few companies. The opportunity for
monopolistic practice is too tempting to ignore, IMV. (Of course there
is a valid reason that Monsanto and the other dominant companies attempt
to market only annual seeds.) There is also a reason that we maintain
native seed stocks as insurance against unanticipated consequences.

If there are risks in genetically engineered species like grains, why
would you expect that there would not be much larger risks in
engineering the much more complex human genome? I'm all for research
into genetic engineering to eliminate disease. After all, isn't that
what we are doing with vaccinations, increasing herd immunity
artificially? But, human nature being what it is, how would you propose
that we assure that genome engineering would not suffer the same market
manipulation that favors free market pricing. We certainly have a
number of recent examples of price manipulation of drugs. Are you
suggesting a strong government regulation to assure that genetic
engineering of humans is available to all? Make it part of Medicare for
All? How very non-conservative of you!

No, I am not in favor of producing a society society of absolute
uniformity, nor do I believe that uniformity would eliminate
discrimination and produce equality. Better, I think, that we value
diversity and work to eliminate the social problems that produce
discrimination and bigotry.
El Castor
2020-06-18 17:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994 book
*The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on intelligence and
class structure. These arguments usually stray into the question of
whether or not intelligence is inherited or influenced by the
environment, a nature vs. nurture argument. Hernstein and Murray
contend that blacks statistically have a mean IQ that is 15 points below
the mean for the whole population and "is a better predictor of many
personal outcomes including financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime than an individual's parental
socioeconomic status." They also suggest that this difference between a
"cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence should be used to
shape public policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by removing
race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of statistically
lower IQ be given special consideration in their lives as pertains to
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement
in crime? An example closer to positions that Jeff has argued might
include preventing the immigration of people who compete for jobs
requiring manual skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we acknowledge a
class structure including one class for which we have low expectations
and another class who can be expected to be the most successful, the
movers and shakers, the most innovative and the most beneficial to
society? Should we design our schools to give this latter class the
best and most expensive education? Should we decide to emphasize manual
skills and sports for those for whom we have lower expectations. Should
our housing, our jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law
enforcement be designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each category
at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those who deserve
the best housing, the higher incomes, the most creative, and the most
likely to not engage in crime? If only we could tell at birth, wouldn't
we favor those who are more intelligent, even if that was at the expense
of those for whom we have lower expectations? Are we justified in
discriminating against them?
Is that a world that we want?
How far would we expect this distinction
to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human rights? Haven't
we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
In the not too distant future we will be able to genetically engineer
our reproductive process to eliminate genetic disease and produce
healthier, more intelligent offspring. Those children of the future
will no doubt still be unequal in many respects, but radical
inequality should be greatly reduced or eliminated. This process will
be costly and may initially be available only to the very rich. Should
it be limited to the rich? Absolutely not, and I hope it never is.
On the other hand, science at this very moment is cloning horses,
exact duplicates, and has been for ten years. Ethics aside, cloning of
humans is just as possible and could produce a society of absolute
uniformity and equality. Should that be a goal?
But for now, in the year 2020, the reality is that human biology is by
it's nature highly unequal. Homo sapiens were not all cast from the
same mold and that is not going to change in the lifetime of any
member of this group.
For a conservative, your vision of a possible future faces a tough
uphill battle unless the Republican party changes dramatically. I'm
sure that you will agree that there is a big difference between
uniformity and equality. Personally, I have the same concerns about
cloning that I have about GMO. We know from evolution that it is
diversity that protects species from extinction. For example, the
effort to optimize yield of grain species results in a narrowing of our
dependence, raising risk that this important food supply is threatened
by a single disease. Without genetic diversity, our ability to recover
is limited by availability of seed stock that exhibits resistance to the
disease. There are many other examples of this in biology. Are you
prepared to expect that we can develop alternative genetic pools in time
to avoid a pandemic?
Then, there is the motive to control markets in an increasing
non-competitive corporate world. Consider the case of Monsanto,
criticized for selling seed stock that produces grain that cannot
reproduce. This assures that farmers become captive to an increasingly
narrow source of seed. 80% of the corn seed market is owned by only 4
companies, for example. This problem is most pronounced in developing
countries where reliance on native seed stock is reduced as farmers
increasingly dependent upon one or a few companies. The opportunity for
monopolistic practice is too tempting to ignore, IMV. (Of course there
is a valid reason that Monsanto and the other dominant companies attempt
to market only annual seeds.) There is also a reason that we maintain
native seed stocks as insurance against unanticipated consequences.
If there are risks in genetically engineered species like grains, why
would you expect that there would not be much larger risks in
engineering the much more complex human genome? I'm all for research
into genetic engineering to eliminate disease. After all, isn't that
what we are doing with vaccinations, increasing herd immunity
artificially? But, human nature being what it is, how would you propose
that we assure that genome engineering would not suffer the same market
manipulation that favors free market pricing. We certainly have a
number of recent examples of price manipulation of drugs. Are you
suggesting a strong government regulation to assure that genetic
engineering of humans is available to all? Make it part of Medicare for
All? How very non-conservative of you!
No, I am not in favor of producing a society society of absolute
uniformity, nor do I believe that uniformity would eliminate
discrimination and produce equality. Better, I think, that we value
diversity and work to eliminate the social problems that produce
discrimination and bigotry.
I am not recommending a future of genetic engineering -- just a future
that I believe will be unavoidable. AI is also about to become a
reality. Like it or not, the world will change radically over the next
century or two. I hope humanity survives.

As for discrimination and bigotry, why did you choose to retire where
you did? Completely forgetting race for a moment, in practical terms
you know that there are neighborhoods in California where you would be
lucky to survive. Cars stolen, homes broken into, and a gun is a
virtual necessity. You have chosen not to live in one of those place,
and so have I, but my choice was not based in the slightest degree on
race, but rather, stark reality and ability. If predominantly Black
neighborhoods were safe and crime free, I would be on my way, but the
world doesn't work that way, and they are not. So don't blame me, or
the color of people's skin, accept reality. BTW -- until and unless
those IQ test scores change, the nature of reality is also not going
to change.
islander
2020-06-19 18:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994 book
*The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on intelligence and
class structure. These arguments usually stray into the question of
whether or not intelligence is inherited or influenced by the
environment, a nature vs. nurture argument. Hernstein and Murray
contend that blacks statistically have a mean IQ that is 15 points below
the mean for the whole population and "is a better predictor of many
personal outcomes including financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime than an individual's parental
socioeconomic status." They also suggest that this difference between a
"cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence should be used to
shape public policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by removing
race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of statistically
lower IQ be given special consideration in their lives as pertains to
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement
in crime? An example closer to positions that Jeff has argued might
include preventing the immigration of people who compete for jobs
requiring manual skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we acknowledge a
class structure including one class for which we have low expectations
and another class who can be expected to be the most successful, the
movers and shakers, the most innovative and the most beneficial to
society? Should we design our schools to give this latter class the
best and most expensive education? Should we decide to emphasize manual
skills and sports for those for whom we have lower expectations. Should
our housing, our jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law
enforcement be designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each category
at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those who deserve
the best housing, the higher incomes, the most creative, and the most
likely to not engage in crime? If only we could tell at birth, wouldn't
we favor those who are more intelligent, even if that was at the expense
of those for whom we have lower expectations? Are we justified in
discriminating against them?
Is that a world that we want?
How far would we expect this distinction
to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human rights? Haven't
we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
In the not too distant future we will be able to genetically engineer
our reproductive process to eliminate genetic disease and produce
healthier, more intelligent offspring. Those children of the future
will no doubt still be unequal in many respects, but radical
inequality should be greatly reduced or eliminated. This process will
be costly and may initially be available only to the very rich. Should
it be limited to the rich? Absolutely not, and I hope it never is.
On the other hand, science at this very moment is cloning horses,
exact duplicates, and has been for ten years. Ethics aside, cloning of
humans is just as possible and could produce a society of absolute
uniformity and equality. Should that be a goal?
But for now, in the year 2020, the reality is that human biology is by
it's nature highly unequal. Homo sapiens were not all cast from the
same mold and that is not going to change in the lifetime of any
member of this group.
For a conservative, your vision of a possible future faces a tough
uphill battle unless the Republican party changes dramatically. I'm
sure that you will agree that there is a big difference between
uniformity and equality. Personally, I have the same concerns about
cloning that I have about GMO. We know from evolution that it is
diversity that protects species from extinction. For example, the
effort to optimize yield of grain species results in a narrowing of our
dependence, raising risk that this important food supply is threatened
by a single disease. Without genetic diversity, our ability to recover
is limited by availability of seed stock that exhibits resistance to the
disease. There are many other examples of this in biology. Are you
prepared to expect that we can develop alternative genetic pools in time
to avoid a pandemic?
Then, there is the motive to control markets in an increasing
non-competitive corporate world. Consider the case of Monsanto,
criticized for selling seed stock that produces grain that cannot
reproduce. This assures that farmers become captive to an increasingly
narrow source of seed. 80% of the corn seed market is owned by only 4
companies, for example. This problem is most pronounced in developing
countries where reliance on native seed stock is reduced as farmers
increasingly dependent upon one or a few companies. The opportunity for
monopolistic practice is too tempting to ignore, IMV. (Of course there
is a valid reason that Monsanto and the other dominant companies attempt
to market only annual seeds.) There is also a reason that we maintain
native seed stocks as insurance against unanticipated consequences.
If there are risks in genetically engineered species like grains, why
would you expect that there would not be much larger risks in
engineering the much more complex human genome? I'm all for research
into genetic engineering to eliminate disease. After all, isn't that
what we are doing with vaccinations, increasing herd immunity
artificially? But, human nature being what it is, how would you propose
that we assure that genome engineering would not suffer the same market
manipulation that favors free market pricing. We certainly have a
number of recent examples of price manipulation of drugs. Are you
suggesting a strong government regulation to assure that genetic
engineering of humans is available to all? Make it part of Medicare for
All? How very non-conservative of you!
No, I am not in favor of producing a society society of absolute
uniformity, nor do I believe that uniformity would eliminate
discrimination and produce equality. Better, I think, that we value
diversity and work to eliminate the social problems that produce
discrimination and bigotry.
I am not recommending a future of genetic engineering -- just a future
that I believe will be unavoidable. AI is also about to become a
reality. Like it or not, the world will change radically over the next
century or two. I hope humanity survives.
As for discrimination and bigotry, why did you choose to retire where
you did? Completely forgetting race for a moment, in practical terms
you know that there are neighborhoods in California where you would be
lucky to survive. Cars stolen, homes broken into, and a gun is a
virtual necessity. You have chosen not to live in one of those place,
and so have I, but my choice was not based in the slightest degree on
race, but rather, stark reality and ability. If predominantly Black
neighborhoods were safe and crime free, I would be on my way, but the
world doesn't work that way, and they are not. So don't blame me, or
the color of people's skin, accept reality. BTW -- until and unless
those IQ test scores change, the nature of reality is also not going
to change.
I chose to retire where I did primarily because both my wife and I had
grown exhausted in the Silicon Valley rat race. While it was
stimulating at first, the effort to keep up, raise money, and deal with
the increasing costs of living there simply told us that it was time for
a change. We wanted to stay in the west, so we looked up and down the
Pacific coast for property that we could eventually retire to. We
didn't find anything that offered the more relaxed life style that we
were looking for until we visited Orcas in Nov 1997. After that, things
happened very quickly. We moved here in Jun 1998. Race was never a
factor in our decision. It took us 20 years before we came to
understand that the peace and solitude that we enjoyed had a major
downside as our health demanded medical care that we could not obtain on
the island. Eventually, that reality has led us to decide to move back
to the mainland. COVID-19 has delayed our plans, but it is sadly
inevitable. We will probably remain in the US, because most other
countries present language problems - I'm too old to learn another
language. Canada is a possibility depending largely on what happens in
Nov.
El Castor
2020-06-20 06:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Jeff and I have been arguing for years about the controversial 1994 book
*The Bell Curve* and Hernstein and Murray's opinions on intelligence and
class structure. These arguments usually stray into the question of
whether or not intelligence is inherited or influenced by the
environment, a nature vs. nurture argument. Hernstein and Murray
contend that blacks statistically have a mean IQ that is 15 points below
the mean for the whole population and "is a better predictor of many
personal outcomes including financial income, job performance, birth out
of wedlock, and involvement in crime than an individual's parental
socioeconomic status." They also suggest that this difference between a
"cognitive elite" and people with lower intelligence should be used to
shape public policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Let me take this argument in a totally different direction by removing
race from the argument.
Should we, for example, define programs where people of statistically
lower IQ be given special consideration in their lives as pertains to
financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement
in crime? An example closer to positions that Jeff has argued might
include preventing the immigration of people who compete for jobs
requiring manual skills and lower intelligence?
Where would this lead us? Is a society better off if we acknowledge a
class structure including one class for which we have low expectations
and another class who can be expected to be the most successful, the
movers and shakers, the most innovative and the most beneficial to
society? Should we design our schools to give this latter class the
best and most expensive education? Should we decide to emphasize manual
skills and sports for those for whom we have lower expectations. Should
our housing, our jobs, our sexual reproduction policies, our law
enforcement be designed to favor policies that reflect these differences?
If only we had some way of determining who would fall into each category
at birth! Wouldn't we engineer our society to favor those who deserve
the best housing, the higher incomes, the most creative, and the most
likely to not engage in crime? If only we could tell at birth, wouldn't
we favor those who are more intelligent, even if that was at the expense
of those for whom we have lower expectations? Are we justified in
discriminating against them?
Is that a world that we want?
How far would we expect this distinction
to take us regarding our deeply held beliefs in human rights? Haven't
we seen this before?
*Margaret Atwood coined the word "ustopian" by combining the words
utopia and dystopia.
In the not too distant future we will be able to genetically engineer
our reproductive process to eliminate genetic disease and produce
healthier, more intelligent offspring. Those children of the future
will no doubt still be unequal in many respects, but radical
inequality should be greatly reduced or eliminated. This process will
be costly and may initially be available only to the very rich. Should
it be limited to the rich? Absolutely not, and I hope it never is.
On the other hand, science at this very moment is cloning horses,
exact duplicates, and has been for ten years. Ethics aside, cloning of
humans is just as possible and could produce a society of absolute
uniformity and equality. Should that be a goal?
But for now, in the year 2020, the reality is that human biology is by
it's nature highly unequal. Homo sapiens were not all cast from the
same mold and that is not going to change in the lifetime of any
member of this group.
For a conservative, your vision of a possible future faces a tough
uphill battle unless the Republican party changes dramatically. I'm
sure that you will agree that there is a big difference between
uniformity and equality. Personally, I have the same concerns about
cloning that I have about GMO. We know from evolution that it is
diversity that protects species from extinction. For example, the
effort to optimize yield of grain species results in a narrowing of our
dependence, raising risk that this important food supply is threatened
by a single disease. Without genetic diversity, our ability to recover
is limited by availability of seed stock that exhibits resistance to the
disease. There are many other examples of this in biology. Are you
prepared to expect that we can develop alternative genetic pools in time
to avoid a pandemic?
Then, there is the motive to control markets in an increasing
non-competitive corporate world. Consider the case of Monsanto,
criticized for selling seed stock that produces grain that cannot
reproduce. This assures that farmers become captive to an increasingly
narrow source of seed. 80% of the corn seed market is owned by only 4
companies, for example. This problem is most pronounced in developing
countries where reliance on native seed stock is reduced as farmers
increasingly dependent upon one or a few companies. The opportunity for
monopolistic practice is too tempting to ignore, IMV. (Of course there
is a valid reason that Monsanto and the other dominant companies attempt
to market only annual seeds.) There is also a reason that we maintain
native seed stocks as insurance against unanticipated consequences.
If there are risks in genetically engineered species like grains, why
would you expect that there would not be much larger risks in
engineering the much more complex human genome? I'm all for research
into genetic engineering to eliminate disease. After all, isn't that
what we are doing with vaccinations, increasing herd immunity
artificially? But, human nature being what it is, how would you propose
that we assure that genome engineering would not suffer the same market
manipulation that favors free market pricing. We certainly have a
number of recent examples of price manipulation of drugs. Are you
suggesting a strong government regulation to assure that genetic
engineering of humans is available to all? Make it part of Medicare for
All? How very non-conservative of you!
No, I am not in favor of producing a society society of absolute
uniformity, nor do I believe that uniformity would eliminate
discrimination and produce equality. Better, I think, that we value
diversity and work to eliminate the social problems that produce
discrimination and bigotry.
I am not recommending a future of genetic engineering -- just a future
that I believe will be unavoidable. AI is also about to become a
reality. Like it or not, the world will change radically over the next
century or two. I hope humanity survives.
As for discrimination and bigotry, why did you choose to retire where
you did? Completely forgetting race for a moment, in practical terms
you know that there are neighborhoods in California where you would be
lucky to survive. Cars stolen, homes broken into, and a gun is a
virtual necessity. You have chosen not to live in one of those place,
and so have I, but my choice was not based in the slightest degree on
race, but rather, stark reality and ability. If predominantly Black
neighborhoods were safe and crime free, I would be on my way, but the
world doesn't work that way, and they are not. So don't blame me, or
the color of people's skin, accept reality. BTW -- until and unless
those IQ test scores change, the nature of reality is also not going
to change.
I chose to retire where I did primarily because both my wife and I had
grown exhausted in the Silicon Valley rat race. While it was
stimulating at first, the effort to keep up, raise money, and deal with
the increasing costs of living there simply told us that it was time for
a change. We wanted to stay in the west, so we looked up and down the
Pacific coast for property that we could eventually retire to. We
didn't find anything that offered the more relaxed life style that we
were looking for until we visited Orcas in Nov 1997. After that, things
happened very quickly. We moved here in Jun 1998. Race was never a
factor in our decision. It took us 20 years before we came to
understand that the peace and solitude that we enjoyed had a major
downside as our health demanded medical care that we could not obtain on
the island. Eventually, that reality has led us to decide to move back
to the mainland. COVID-19 has delayed our plans, but it is sadly
inevitable. We will probably remain in the US, because most other
countries present language problems - I'm too old to learn another
language. Canada is a possibility depending largely on what happens in
Nov.
I've always liked Canada and Canadians, but being a California boy I
doubt I could take the weather. My daughter has moved to Boise, a
popular destination for Californians, and she likes it and is selling
her house in Santa Rosa. The snow situation is pretty mild. I have a
relative in a Portland suburb -- very nice, and I think you would like
the politics. I probably have told you about AreaVibes before. It's a
useful site that rates every city in the US on multiple standards and
sometimes has comments by residents. Because it's a thing of
Realtor.com, it also has all the listings.
https://www.areavibes.com/
Loading...