wealthy parents, or superior genes? which would you prefer if you had a choice?

wealth versus genetics

  • wealthy parents, inherent average genes

    Votes: 7 15.2%
  • middle class parents, inherent superior genes

    Votes: 39 84.8%

  • Total voters
    46

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Shrieking sanctimony is the cry of the vapid mediocrity.

Or, more generously, the intellectual climate is super-sensitive to anything that could be construed as eugenics or nazi-related, making discussion of such issues fraught with moral import.

There's nothing offensive about asking on an online forum whether you'd want good genes or wealth, though it's a bit distasteful and not something you should discuss on a first date or over the family dinner table...



You must move in very delicate circles indeed, I found nothing especially offensive about the question, and knowing him as I do I imagine Drifter probably thinks I'm a PC-Nazi :biggrin1:
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
This "superior gene" bullshit kinda raised my eyebrows too.

Who is to determine by what traits one is considered "superior"? By what definition, beauty? And "superior" to what? Characteristics presumably "inferior"??
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,306
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
There's nothing offensive about asking on an online forum whether you'd want good genes or wealth ....

I found the OP perfectly reasonable.
It could have been a launching pad to some kind of genetic hygienist's nut-bar blatherings, but that didn't happen at all.
I don't know what Drifterwood's on about.
 
Last edited:

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
This "superior gene" bullshit kinda raised my eyebrows too.

Who is to determine by what traits one is considered "superior"? By what definition, beauty? And "superior" to what? Characteristics presumably "inferior"??


Meh, I don't think the OP had an agenda is using the word "superior". And besides there's nothing wrong with accepting that some people have genetics which make them better adapted than others and that some have genetics which make them less well adapted. Were it not for modern medicine my genetically inherited conditions would probably have killed me before my 25th birthday, making a portion of my genes essentially defective and I have no problem whatsoever admitting that.
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I'm not suggesting the o.p. had an agenda, nor do I think he does.

What I'm suggesting is that the term "superior genes" is a misnomer - flawed by the implication that any particular characteristic is "superior" to another.

"Preferable" perhaps, and even that a variable depending upon what characteristics are valued by a particular culture or community.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
I'm not suggesting the o.p. had an agenda, nor do I think he does.

What I'm suggesting is that the term "superior genes" is a misnomer - flawed by the implication that any particular characteristic is "superior" to another.

"Preferable" perhaps, and even that a variable depending upon what characteristics are valued by a particular culture or community.



Well again, there are clear examples of genetic mutations which are in evolutionary terms defective, their evolutionary "inferiority" is a function of the fact that they are unlikely to be selected for by the processes of natural selection. There are genetic mutations which are by contrast much more effective and are therefore more likely to be selected for. This need not have anything to do with culture or community.

You can describe them (imperfectly, and somewhat inaccurately I'll grant you) in terms of inferiority and superiority. So long as no further attempt to build theories of genetic hygiene are constructed on that dichotomy it's essentially a harmless misnomer.
 

D_Barbi Bendone

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
25
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Fuck off.

How many beefheads are worth one Stephen Hawking?

If you even look at life like this your genes have bypassed your brain.

I couldn't be arsed to write eugenicist.

God, lol! You must not have much of an education in biology and its branches. You know that intelligence has genetic background too.


We can't hide forever the truth we are not equal.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
God, lol! You must not have much of an education in biology and its branches. You know that intelligence has genetic background too.


We can't hide forever the truth we are not equal.



Having maladaptive genetic mutations does not make one inferior even if one could in casual unscientific language describe the genetic mutation in question as inferior. We are all equal.
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Well again, there are clear examples of genetic mutations which are in evolutionary terms defective, their evolutionary "inferiority" is a function of the fact that they are unlikely to be selected for by the processes of natural selection. There are genetic mutations which are by contrast much more effective and are therefore more likely to be selected for. This need not have anything to do with culture or community.

You can describe them (imperfectly, and somewhat inaccurately I'll grant you) in terms of inferiority and superiority. So long as no further attempt to build theories of genetic hygiene are constructed on that dichotomy it's essentially a harmless misnomer.

Well, yes, when speaking of genetic mutations one can rather safely conclude that one might be "superior" to another in terms of what advantages or disadvantages the particular aberration gives the mutated organism. But as you state, this is far from the implications of "superior" and "inferior" genes withing a societal setting.

Take for instance those who bemoan not having a so-called "athletic" build. Who is to say that those of us who are quite slim are not "superior" (if we're speaking in terms of adaptability to certain environments) to the so-called hunk?

Or consider those kids of untold generations who grew up wanting "good" (meaning "straight") hair... "good" as determined by some cultural definition. ...which if "good" the opposite would have to be (by implication) "bad", would it not?

By whose definition is it either?

The thing that I find objectionable in the term "superior" is the implication that because certain traits may be preferable within a society, this would automatically make them "superior" or "better" than another.

I disagree.
 
Last edited:

D_Barbi Bendone

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Posts
25
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
36
Having maladaptive genetic mutations does not make one inferior even if one could in casual unscientific language describe the genetic mutation in question as inferior. We are all equal.
Nope. It really does to a heavy extent. And it is all around us but we love to deny it. Then when we watch nature documentaries that always remind us of the brutal truth, and then we just try to bury it again. HOWEVER, it does get quiet complex here. Like with the Stephen Hawking example. He has both many superior and inferior genes, and it still a highly valuable genius. Then there are behavioral traits to factor in too, not just intelligence and physical body.


If you think I would write off all mentally challenged people so fast, you really have not thought thoroughly about this. I would soon write off faster the welfare queens who do nothing good for society than a Down syndrome person who tries their best to contribute to something, even if it is just simple menial labor.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
How many beefheads are worth one Stephen Hawking?

Do you even realise what you just wrote?

Of course. I turned the prejudices inside out to attempt to demonstrate the gaping flaw in this thread.

You actually explained this in a later post so I am surprised you didn't get it first time.

The terms inferior and superior demonstrate the presumptions in all this and i wonder where you all want to go. If there is a gay gene, is that inferior? I mean being gay has not had a happy history and still doesn't in most of the world.

And then the choice being against wealthy. WTF? Who created the wealth? Oh yeah the people who gave you their genes. IMO this thread is fucked up from the start.

There is an old expression I hear, "Don't call a man happy until he is dead." I would look to your genes in this respect.

While I am at it how about the(I can't write the word so I'll use an anogram) inggres, look at all the discrimination, do they have inferior genes? OK, I can say it, Gingers, mocked and humiliated from birth. :tongue:
 
Last edited:

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Nope. It really does to a heavy extent. And it is all around us but we love to deny it. Then when we watch nature documentaries that always remind us of the brutal truth, and then we just try to bury it again. HOWEVER, it does get quiet complex here. Like with the Stephen Hawking example. He has both many superior and inferior genes, and it still a highly valuable genius. Then there are behavioral traits to factor in too, not just intelligence and physical body.


If you think I would write off all mentally challenged people so fast, you really have not thought thoroughly about this. I would soon write off faster the welfare queens who do nothing good for society than a Down syndrome person who tries their best to contribute to something, even if it is just simple menial labor.




:rolleyes: Equality is a concept in philosophy, politics and law, it has nothing to do with genetics, excepting in one respect, the only "genetic" requirement for one's equality is one's humanity. Equality is a human right, it isn't earned it is innate.


Your opinions are offensive.
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
Maybe this guy would give you a better explanation than me.

Tom Shakespeare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could email him at the WHO where he sits on the Global Ethics Committee.



Though again Drifter that has little or nothing to do with the hypothetical choice posed by the OP. The OP asks if you would rather be born to wealthy parents or be born with the genetics for high intelligence, good looks, presumably good health etc.

The OP doesn't make a pernicious distinction of "superiority" as a mark of physical perfection only.


You're free of course to answer the OP by saying you might well choose to inherit the genetics for a higher than average intelligence but that you personally don't see any superiority in inheriting genetics for athleticism and good looks.

As it goes how one looks is heritable. Whether the society one is born into regards you as good looking or not is of course little enough to do with genetics and is an accident of fate. Though there is of course an evolutionary aspect to some of the things human beings are naturally attracted to in one another.

Banging the drum that you think the OP is eugenicist in some way only makes sense if the OP suggests that genetic "superiority" (so called and as defined by the criteria in the OP) is in itself actually preferable and should be actively selected for by some form of unnatural selection.

If you can pinpoint where the OP does that I would gladly jump on the bandwagon with you and bang my own drum.
 

luka82

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
5,058
Media
0
Likes
44
Points
193
Age
41
Location
somewhere
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Money!
And I`ll be famous just for that! And I`d even a host a TV show called Luka`s BFF and I`d do it in Dubai!
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Though again Drifter ................

I am very busy, but the poll refers to superior genes.

Please explain what this means, without relying on cultural prejudice, and bearing in mind your perceived superior genes might just crap on you tomorrow.

Then please tell me how you could avoid discrimination once you have established what is "superior".
 

D_Tim McGnaw

Account Disabled
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Posts
5,420
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
133
I am very busy, but the poll refers to superior genes.

Please explain what this means, without relying on cultural prejudice, and bearing in mind your perceived superior genes might just crap on you tomorrow.

Then please tell me how you could avoid discrimination once you have established what is "superior".



Have you read the OP? Have you read any of my other posts to this thread? I've already pretty much addressed your questions, and I'm too busy to repeat myself.
 
Last edited: