Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[Hitman]

Ignoring any moral implication I just remind of a simple fact: diseases and defects that are genetically transported, will progressively effect the racial gene pool. So when you medically treat persons with such defects and now they survive until the age when they can multiply where before they would have died and nature would have run natural selection that way, this has, over generations, an effect of the general gene pool.

The number of people with bad eyes who need to wear glasses, is increasing for example. While short sight is not necessarily something that would doom the individual to die in the "wilderness" , it nevertheless illustrates how the presence of a genetic characteristic - bad eyes in this case - results in this characteristic spreading in the gene pool. That with too bad eyes you would die in the wilderness because you can no longer kill your prey or see where your field is, is minor in this example.

But the number of hemophiliac persons is increasing, too. This is because in modern times they have more often children carrying the genetic defect as well, where as in earlier times they simply died before they could have had children.

Just a reminder of biological facts, I do not make any moral judgment or moral comment here. Just want to remind you that nature is totally unsentimental and does not know man's ideas of morals and ethics.

It's an interesting point of view, but I would like to add two observations to that:

1) Evolution itself theoretically eliminates those unfit to live in certain environments and promotes the best adapted to survive and procrate, thus pushing their genes forward to the next generation. We should however bear in mind that today's environment for 99% of the humans is not the wilderness, but a civilization. Hence, those physical and health limitations are largely irrelevant, as they would tend to eliminate individuals that can actually be the fittest for today's environment (F.e. imagine a very talented engineer that is hemophiliac). In that sense, you can't say that we are acting against nature; nature just eliminates those unfit for an environment, and hemophiliacs and people with bad eyesight have no problem at all with our current environment.

2) That said, despite intelligence being the main or more relevant characteristic to succed in our modern environment, the people with lower IQ are not eliminated by nature, nor tend they at least to have less childs. In fact, it is quite the opposite, as low levels of culture are usually associated with bigger families in societies where children mortality is low (In those with high children mortality it's a different matter). Here is were we are supposedly acting against nature, if one follows your reasoning. We can solve the illnesses and physical limitations with technology and medicine, but we can't make an idiot be an Einstein. Does that also effect the racial gene pool in terms of average IQ of human kind?

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Here is were we are supposedly acting against nature, if one follows your reasoning. We can solve the illnesses and physical limitations with technology and medicine, but we can't make an idiot be an Einstein.

Following that darwinistic logic, Stephen Hawking's parents would have aborted him, if they had checked out their baby's genes...

[Hitman]

Following that darwinistic logic, Stephen Hawking's parents would have aborted him, if they had checked out their baby's genes...

Actually the opposite: For a human nowadays it is more important to be intelligent than to be physically healthy. Our environment favours intelligent people, not healthy but stupid one ...

In any case I wanted to highlight that Skybird's reasoning was based in objective darwinism, but probably on the wrong characteristics -physical health, which is no longer the more relevant one to be adapated to our environment.

I could say that I do not share those darwinistic views, but in fact unlike you I don't see moral implications in Skybird's assertions. It's an objective fact that the human race has nowadays lots of individuals that would have died in other ages -and environments. Yet, I do not agree in that we are countering nature by that, in fact we have just adapted as a race to different conditions. Defects that earlier mattered, do not any longer, and other things are more important. In the intelligence matter we could eventually be doing against nature by helping mentally weak poeple to keep existing, but here is where moral matters step in, and we all accept that it must be this way. Moral is applied over darwinism, we all agree that it is right, so what's the problem? Not willing to realize that we have superceded darwinism due to our moral convictions, and that we must take care to implement the proper corrections via technology and medicine would be stupid. Morals tell you the right decision to do, but do not hide reality, do not mistake both aspects of the same question.

[tater]

Natural selection rewards reproductive fitness. Nothing else. Idiots making loads of baby are "fit" by definition.

[Ducimus]

What ever happened to natural selection? Survival of the fittest? The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own. Simple stuff. Nature knows best!
- George Carlin

I kinda agree with that.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

Natural selection rewards reproductive fitness. Nothing else. Idiots making loads of baby are "fit" by definition.

No, that's not exactly true. Natural selection rewards overall fitness to survive. That is, the most adept in their environment are the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation. All, even those least able to thrive are physically capable of reproduction, epecially in the male sex, where the physical difficulties of gestation are not endured.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

No, that's not exactly true. Natural selection rewards overall fitness to survive. That is, the most adept in their environment are the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation. All, even those least able to thrive are physically capable of reproduction, especially in the male sex, where the physical difficulties of gestation are not endured.

You totally left out the part about competing for the available mates in order to reproduce. Natural selection left unhampered by civilization would've eliminated the least able to thrive in favor of their competition, those fit to survive.

You simply can't have natural selection in a society that medically can save almost anyone with any malady (at any cost), because they will eventually add to the gene pool.

...of course they now have artificial means for those who fail to 'naturally' mate.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

You totally left out the part about competing for the available mates in order to reproduce. Natural selection left unhampered by civilization would've eliminated the least able to thrive in favor of their competition, those fit to survive.

You simply can't have natural selection in a society that medically can save almost anyone with any malady (at any cost), because they will eventually add to the gene pool.

...of course they now have artificial means for those who fail to 'naturally' mate.

I was saving that for the inevitable counterpoint. I never show my entire hand.

You're right; this man would have no chance at survival, let alone reproduction, in a 'natural' environment. My point would have been that it is only civilization that saves him. As such, what is civil is not always the best for the species. It is why so many questions are raised of reproduction by the mentally disabled. Of course, I have no intention of saying yay or nay to that issue, as I have no real answers to give.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

No, that's not exactly true. Natural selection rewards overall fitness to survive. That is, the most adept in their environment are the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation. All, even those least able to thrive are physically capable of reproduction, epecially in the male sex, where the physical difficulties of gestation are not endured.

Fitness in evolutionary biology is reproductive fitness. "Survival" is meaningless evolutionarily if you do not reproduce to pass on anything.

So while some non-reproductive trait might increase the number of offspring you produce (or sire), the fact that more offspring is created is what matters and is "fitness" in population genetics.

You can be a novel "superman" and it makes no difference if you do not pass the genes on.

More genes passed on is more "fit."

Natural selection "rewards" nothing at all. It just is.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

Fitness in evolutionary biology is reproductive fitness. "Survival" is meaningless evolutionarily if you do not reproduce to pass on anything.

So while some non-reproductive trait might increase the number of offspring you produce (or sire), the fact that more offspring is created is what matters and is "fitness" in population genetics.

You can be a novel "superman" and it makes no difference if you do not pass the genes on.

More genes passed on is more "fit."

Natural selection "rewards" nothing at all. It just is.

But now we go in circles. Reproduction is meaningless if the organism does not survive to maturation, let alone successfully find a mate. A 'novel superman' will likely survive to pass on his genetic material.