I'm friends with Cochran. One of his interests is in using this research to find out methods of copying pharmecutically what these genes are doing naturally. (The genetic disease occurs for most of these genes when a person has two copies of the gene. The intelligence advantage comes from just one.) In other words, he wants to create a "smart pill" to raise IQ.
Ethically wrong? Illegal, certainly. In many places. For the distributor usually, not the distributee.
But we're well beyond a universal system of ethics aren't we? I can imagine a number of arguments that could be used to by people who have no ethical problem with copyright infringement.
For one, copyright is a contract between the government and authors on their people's behalf. Since it's made without the individual's say-so, he might not consider himself bound by it.
For another, copyright has only existed for a few centuries. The great ethical minds of the past never had a problem with appropriating the intellectual property of others.
Another argument that could be used is that modern copyright terms have been manipulated by big business into lengths of time that violate their intended purpose. Therefore the law is unjust and should be disobeyed.
Another argument could be that copyright itself is a bad idea that stifles creation. In music, for example, the case could be made the copyright has killed live performance. Therefore the law is wrong and just be disobeyed.
So on and so forth.
I can imagine arguments in the other direction as well. But the point is that there is no universal morality on the subject.
Let me paraphrase you: 'Running is NOT a simple genetic trait. It is a combination of MANY genetic traits, combined with a huge number of non-genetic factors. Running strength develops by being exercised.'
That said, modern humans are probably better runner than any type of Homo Erectus or Neanderthal. Check out our long bones. We are faster runners through evolution. Evolution has changed running speed over time. (Same goes for intelligence, but I didn't want to crush your argument so quickly.)
The traits necessary for being a great runner aren't even that well spread through the gene pool. I don't think that I need to name names -- it is obvious enough to anyone watching the Olympics.
As you can see, Gould's argument is of little worth. I love to read Gould -- I have a number of his books, but Mismeasure contains his most intellectually bankrupt writing outside Rocks of Ages.
Your first statement goes against all the measurable data on the subject. I assume you are sourcing it to the 'Journal of Wishful Thinking'? Your first link goes to a well-known internet hoax. Your last paragraph is probably true, but is independent of the relation between IQ and having few children.
It is fairly well established that low-IQ people are having more children than high-IQ people.
I can point out exceptions just like you did -- I know smart people with lots of kids, and stupid people with none. I'm sure that you know enough mathematics however to know that individual exceptions do not challenge a statistical trend.
To answer the question, one has to look at which genes are reproducing themselves, and which aren't.
It's pretty clear that the environment has been dysgenic for intelligence in the modern world for at least a century. The more intelligent you are, the better education you get, and the more education you get, the less children you have.
The most likely outcome of future human evolution might be something like Kornbluth's "Marching Morons." Over the next few centuries, the average IQ of the human race will drop to 60-70.
The Flynn effect might be raised as an objection, but the Flynn effect is not genetic, so it can't affect this.
Arbitrary? The number of mammal digits gets decided only after millions of years of evolution. The decimal notation of counting is developed independently all over the world to mesh with finger number. People finding mystical significance in number spurs Greek mathematics and philosophy and eventually Western Civilization.
And a punk like you comes around and finds round numbers arbitrary. Just where do you get off, huh?
As an atheist, I can't stand talk from people about hating all religions. It shows lack of discernment. Some religions are far worse than others. Christianity, though it has its bad points, is one of the better religions. It is, after all, inseperable from Western life and culture.
Where I work, the computer network installs Firefox on all of the Windows boxes, and makes it hard to find IE. This is in the name of "security."
Unfortunately, IE is updated with the Automatic Windows Updates, while Firefox is only updated by us when a new Windows template is rolled out on all the computers every 6 months or so.
From a security standpoint, fully updated IE is much better than unupdated Firefox. Unfortunately, anti-Microsoft zealotry keeps people from making rational decisions on the subject.
Given that violence in the media has somewhere near zero effect on behavior, and sex in the media has a corrupting effect on morals, yes the boobies are the real corrupting influence. In fact, we're probably worse at relationships for it. Now that's a tragedy.
Set up a kill bot. Let it search for unupdated computers, and then, taking advantage of old vulnerabilities, remove the machines from the network by writing over the hosts file or something. Make everybody sign that they understand about the bot's existence before they can connect to the network, and you're in the clear.
What I find interesting is the distinction between email and phone use. It's illegal in many states -- may even be federal law for all I know -- to listen in on employee phone communication. Why doesn't email deserve this same protection?
I do not believe that we can morally tell anyone not to possess nuclear weapons unless we dedicate ourself to a date when we do not possess them too.
Then the solution is to immorally tell other nations that they can't have them. That way you have neither the stupidity of unilateral disarmament nor the stupidity of looking the other way on nuclear proliferation. I hope that this bit of Life 101 helps you out there.
My solution is to start making the government pay damages when it grants a stupid and economically damaging patent. It could pay for said damages by with a special tax on patent lawyers.
You deny the existence of human universals? Luckily ignorance is a condition easily cured. Here you go: The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
But your comment does put me in mind of an interesting story about the Jewish kibbutzim. After a number of years, people began to notice something strange about children raised in the kibbutzim. When they got older, children from the same kibbutz didn't do as young men and young women are wont to do: namely, they didn't fall in love with each other. Apparently the conditions under which children were raised in a kibbutz sparked the incest reaction.
From the cannibals of darkest Africa to the kibbutzim of Israel to the Suburban sprawl of the American Midwest, it's the same human nature being played out.
An imbalance in the number of men to women (or women to men) doesn't means the extra men "don't get a relationship".
Why not look at actual historical examples of sex imbalances? For example the man shortage in Europe after WWI and WWII. Or the female shortage in Asian immigrant communities in the US. (Due to the fact of high interracial marriage rates among Asian women and very low rates among Asian men.) Or the effects of polygamy on communities that practice it.
That's certainly my gut feeling as well. I'll admit that it's possible that.99 cents a song on iTunes is the optimization point. But I have the feeling that that price is losing the music industry money.
Their bean-counters decide that well if we can make billions selling songs for.05/download we could make 10x as much if we sell them for.50/download and 20x as much if we sell them for.99/download.
Unless their bean-counters have taken Econ 101 and know the most basic things about supply and demand. As you increase price, you decrease volume. There is always a sweet spot that maximizes profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is an interview I had with Cochran about the possibility that homosexuality is caused by a virus:
Interview Interview Extras
I'm friends with Cochran. One of his interests is in using this research to find out methods of copying pharmecutically what these genes are doing naturally. (The genetic disease occurs for most of these genes when a person has two copies of the gene. The intelligence advantage comes from just one.) In other words, he wants to create a "smart pill" to raise IQ.
Ethically wrong? Illegal, certainly. In many places. For the distributor usually, not the distributee.
But we're well beyond a universal system of ethics aren't we? I can imagine a number of arguments that could be used to by people who have no ethical problem with copyright infringement.
For one, copyright is a contract between the government and authors on their people's behalf. Since it's made without the individual's say-so, he might not consider himself bound by it.
For another, copyright has only existed for a few centuries. The great ethical minds of the past never had a problem with appropriating the intellectual property of others.
Another argument that could be used is that modern copyright terms have been manipulated by big business into lengths of time that violate their intended purpose. Therefore the law is unjust and should be disobeyed.
Another argument could be that copyright itself is a bad idea that stifles creation. In music, for example, the case could be made the copyright has killed live performance. Therefore the law is wrong and just be disobeyed.
So on and so forth.
I can imagine arguments in the other direction as well. But the point is that there is no universal morality on the subject.
It's called the Flynn Effect. I mentioned it already. It's too fast to be genetic though, so it has no bearing.
Let me paraphrase you: 'Running is NOT a simple genetic trait. It is a combination of MANY genetic traits, combined with a huge number of non-genetic factors. Running strength develops by being exercised.'
That said, modern humans are probably better runner than any type of Homo Erectus or Neanderthal. Check out our long bones. We are faster runners through evolution. Evolution has changed running speed over time. (Same goes for intelligence, but I didn't want to crush your argument so quickly.)
The traits necessary for being a great runner aren't even that well spread through the gene pool. I don't think that I need to name names -- it is obvious enough to anyone watching the Olympics.
As you can see, Gould's argument is of little worth. I love to read Gould -- I have a number of his books, but Mismeasure contains his most intellectually bankrupt writing outside Rocks of Ages.
Your first statement goes against all the measurable data on the subject. I assume you are sourcing it to the 'Journal of Wishful Thinking'? Your first link goes to a well-known internet hoax. Your last paragraph is probably true, but is independent of the relation between IQ and having few children.
That's actually the plot of "The Marching Morons" that I referenced above. It's a great story. I think it was even made into a Twilight Zone episode.
It is fairly well established that low-IQ people are having more children than high-IQ people.
I can point out exceptions just like you did -- I know smart people with lots of kids, and stupid people with none. I'm sure that you know enough mathematics however to know that individual exceptions do not challenge a statistical trend.
To answer the question, one has to look at which genes are reproducing themselves, and which aren't.
It's pretty clear that the environment has been dysgenic for intelligence in the modern world for at least a century. The more intelligent you are, the better education you get, and the more education you get, the less children you have.
The most likely outcome of future human evolution might be something like Kornbluth's "Marching Morons." Over the next few centuries, the average IQ of the human race will drop to 60-70.
The Flynn effect might be raised as an objection, but the Flynn effect is not genetic, so it can't affect this.
Arbitrary? The number of mammal digits gets decided only after millions of years of evolution. The decimal notation of counting is developed independently all over the world to mesh with finger number. People finding mystical significance in number spurs Greek mathematics and philosophy and eventually Western Civilization.
And a punk like you comes around and finds round numbers arbitrary. Just where do you get off, huh?
As an atheist, I can't stand talk from people about hating all religions. It shows lack of discernment. Some religions are far worse than others. Christianity, though it has its bad points, is one of the better religions. It is, after all, inseperable from Western life and culture.
Where I work, the computer network installs Firefox on all of the Windows boxes, and makes it hard to find IE. This is in the name of "security."
Unfortunately, IE is updated with the Automatic Windows Updates, while Firefox is only updated by us when a new Windows template is rolled out on all the computers every 6 months or so.
From a security standpoint, fully updated IE is much better than unupdated Firefox. Unfortunately, anti-Microsoft zealotry keeps people from making rational decisions on the subject.
Given that violence in the media has somewhere near zero effect on behavior, and sex in the media has a corrupting effect on morals, yes the boobies are the real corrupting influence. In fact, we're probably worse at relationships for it. Now that's a tragedy.
Here is the solution:
Set up a kill bot. Let it search for unupdated computers, and then, taking advantage of old vulnerabilities, remove the machines from the network by writing over the hosts file or something. Make everybody sign that they understand about the bot's existence before they can connect to the network, and you're in the clear.
What I find interesting is the distinction between email and phone use. It's illegal in many states -- may even be federal law for all I know -- to listen in on employee phone communication. Why doesn't email deserve this same protection?
Yeah, I'd love to have a bunch of my friends get together to remember me after I'm gone...just in time to hype a major new Hollywood Blockbuster.
I do not believe that we can morally tell anyone not to possess nuclear weapons unless we dedicate ourself to a date when we do not possess them too.
Then the solution is to immorally tell other nations that they can't have them. That way you have neither the stupidity of unilateral disarmament nor the stupidity of looking the other way on nuclear proliferation. I hope that this bit of Life 101 helps you out there.
My solution is to start making the government pay damages when it grants a stupid and economically damaging patent. It could pay for said damages by with a special tax on patent lawyers.
You deny the existence of human universals? Luckily ignorance is a condition easily cured. Here you go: The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
But your comment does put me in mind of an interesting story about the Jewish kibbutzim. After a number of years, people began to notice something strange about children raised in the kibbutzim. When they got older, children from the same kibbutz didn't do as young men and young women are wont to do: namely, they didn't fall in love with each other. Apparently the conditions under which children were raised in a kibbutz sparked the incest reaction.
From the cannibals of darkest Africa to the kibbutzim of Israel to the Suburban sprawl of the American Midwest, it's the same human nature being played out.
Good thing human nature is infinitely malleable, huh?
Oh, wait...
An imbalance in the number of men to women (or women to men) doesn't means the extra men "don't get a relationship".
Why not look at actual historical examples of sex imbalances? For example the man shortage in Europe after WWI and WWII. Or the female shortage in Asian immigrant communities in the US. (Due to the fact of high interracial marriage rates among Asian women and very low rates among Asian men.) Or the effects of polygamy on communities that practice it.
None of these examples support your above theory.
That's certainly my gut feeling as well. I'll admit that it's possible that .99 cents a song on iTunes is the optimization point. But I have the feeling that that price is losing the music industry money.
Their bean-counters decide that well if we can make billions selling songs for .05/download we could make 10x as much if we sell them for .50/download and 20x as much if we sell them for .99/download.
Unless their bean-counters have taken Econ 101 and know the most basic things about supply and demand. As you increase price, you decrease volume. There is always a sweet spot that maximizes profit.
I take it that nobody in music fairly land has any economists working for them? Price optimums in supply-demand curves, Econ 101, yes?
By using "MAME" in your post, you've already violated any copyright there is on the term. (There isn't.) The logo may be a different story.