http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737 (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737)
QuoteHuman geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.
QuoteIn 2010, GWAS (genome wide association studies) fever will reach its peak. Dozens of papers will report specific genes associated with almost every imaginable trait—intelligence, personality, religiosity, sexuality, longevity, economic risk-taking, consumer preferences, leisure interests and political attitudes.
Is it Gattaca yet?
In 2010, geneticists will reveal that high intelligence is genetically linked to being a neurotic motherfucker. Insurance companies will deny insurance to people they deem to have "high achievement potential" because they are at higher risk for melancholy and ill humors.
Dang.
Clearly there is no such thing as nurture. :lulz:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 06, 2009, 07:39:12 PM
Clearly there is no such thing as nurture. :lulz:
only if your parents were genetically predisposed to it. :wink:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 06, 2009, 07:39:12 PM
Clearly there is no such thing as nurture. :lulz:
QuoteIn 2010, GWAS (genome wide association studies) fever will reach its peak. Dozens of papers will report specific genes associated with almost every imaginable trait—intelligence, personality, religiosity, sexuality, longevity, economic risk-taking, consumer preferences, leisure interests and political attitudes.
Does it say determining?
No?
How strange, that must mean the writer made an error.
Yes thats it, that must be it.
It couldn't possibly be that the scientists were
good scientists, that would just be silly.
I never said the scientists weren't good, just the idiot that wrote this article.
hmmm maybe i should read the actual article before opening my big mouth,
I have no idea if it is any good.
i mean
YOU STUPID SUCKMONGER! BOOOO!
:lulz: This is hilarious. Probably the same people trying this stuff are the ones who think you can imput a human genome into a computer and pop out a human simulation. Just fucking funny. :lulz:
But once we can simply tell people who and what they are based on their genes, it'll be so much easier than considering them as whole human beings. We need better ways of stuffing people into their boxes, and if we can do it right from birth it'll be much more efficient.
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.
Quote from: GA on December 07, 2009, 12:06:51 AM
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.
It's basically nonexistant. The genetic variation is very tiny. So tiny that humans (all of us) are less genetically diverse than any two regionally distinct groups of chimps.
I just saw the byline. George Miller, an evolutionary psychologist. I think I cited him once. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Cainad on December 06, 2009, 11:54:22 PM
But once we can simply tell people who and what they are based on their genes, it'll be so much easier than considering them as whole human beings. We need better ways of stuffing people into their boxes, and if we can do it right from birth it'll be much more efficient.
Come on, Cainad, you gotta laugh. Monkeys who think they understand shit when they absolutely understand nothing at all are so funny. :lulz:
I can feel the backslide into plato's cave as we speak. :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Cainad on December 06, 2009, 11:54:22 PM
But once we can simply tell people who and what they are based on their genes, it'll be so much easier than considering them as whole human beings. We need better ways of stuffing people into their boxes, and if we can do it right from birth it'll be much more efficient.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: GA on December 07, 2009, 12:06:51 AM
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.
Sounds like someone's been reading Arthur Jenson with a straight face. :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 07, 2009, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on December 08, 2009, 11:12:46 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 07, 2009, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 07, 2009, 04:55:45 PM
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.