Genetic Inequality and Inevitable Eugenics

[Cain]

Note that this article appeared in the Economist, as opposed to the "People Who Know Anything About A Subject Vaguely Related To Biology" journal.

I see a lot of very definite predictions being made in that article, especially in the area of what they expect to find.  If anything, genomic diversity between different ethnic groups has been wildly overestimated, not the other way around.

Doesn't this story do the rounds about every five years or so?  I'm pretty certain I've seen it several times before, including at least once when I was a kid.

That alone sets off my bullshit detectors, because any story that says "in a few years" which then needs to be repeated doesn't seem to have a good track record.

Also, genetic inequality automatically leading to political/social inequality seems pretty suspect, too.  Deriving an ought from an is isn't that sound, logically. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sounds like someone's been reading Arthur Jenson with a straight face.   

[Requia ☣]

Also, genetic inequality automatically leading to political/social inequality seems pretty suspect, too.  Deriving an ought from an is isn't that sound, logically. 

That's the bit that really sets off my bullshit detector.  There is probably some small degree of genetic inequality, but the extent to which social class is based on being raised in the right social class (adoption studies show adopted kids kids matching test scores of their peers), defies any attempt to revive Social Darwinism.

[BabylonHoruv]

Also, genetic inequality automatically leading to political/social inequality seems pretty suspect, too.  Deriving an ought from an is isn't that sound, logically. 

That's the bit that really sets off my bullshit detector.  There is probably some small degree of genetic inequality, but the extent to which social class is based on being raised in the right social class (adoption studies show adopted kids kids matching test scores of their peers), defies any attempt to revive Social Darwinism.

survival pressures are much more strenuous for the lower classes so if anything they're genetically superior.

[Template]

Also, genetic inequality automatically leading to political/social inequality seems pretty suspect, too.  Deriving an ought from an is isn't that sound, logically. 

That's the bit that really sets off my bullshit detector.  There is probably some small degree of genetic inequality, but the extent to which social class is based on being raised in the right social class (adoption studies show adopted kids kids matching test scores of their peers), defies any attempt to revive Social Darwinism.

survival pressures are much more strenuous for the lower classes so if anything they're genetically superior.

The pressures are different.