this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
779 points (91.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
5575 readers
3007 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Intelligence is inheritable, brain size is a selective trait. Arguably one of the five defining traits of Homo Sapiens. Repetitive de-prioritization is an environmental pressure as maintaining said size is a significant energy expenditure.
It isn't eugenics it's evolution. If the size doesn't provide a reproductive benefit it doesn't continue after a few generations. Ironically our internal special conflicts/predation help to maintain intelligence value.
Intelligence doesn't even have a proper definition in the biological domain. If you have any scientific proof that intelligence is inheritable, do show!
You can juggle words all you want: you're describing eugenicist principles. Those aren't only morally unjustyfiable: they're simply wrong with an oversimplified understanding of evolution and intelligence.
Eugenics seeks results, Evolution seeks to understand how we got to where we are (maybe what we could do, CRISPR is pretty damn cool).
Intelligence (the ability to learn and reason) is based on brain size and composition/structure, both of which have a basis in genetics. It isn't totally reliant, but it provides the framework.
I don't know how else to phrase it: the claim that intelligence is breedable is a eugenicist foundation.
Evolution is a process, you're confusing evolution with evolutionary science.
Your definition of intelligence is incredibly oversimplified. Intelligence is not an inheritable trait (as in: the difference in intelligence of human population does not significantly stem from genetic differences).
I think there is a fundamental miscommunication happening here and it's basis may lay in time. Idiocracy is set 1000 years after 2001. A millennia is evolutionary significant.
The movie suggests a self selecting breeding program that de-prioritizes intelligence. 100 generations is significant. This would likely result in reduced brain mass and simplified structure. This would be a measurable genetic result.
Again this isn't likely due to circumstances I outlined above, but Judge's model has a basis on different environmental benefits from reality. As he has stated about his satire.
Yeah. That is a fundamentally eugenicist idea.
You repeatedly claim that it's a satire. What is the target and the purpose of that satire?
Two points. First Eugenics has an outsider making breeding choices not the breeders that's the point of self selecting. Second I don't think you even conceptually understand theoretic/metaphoric modeling and if you do you are purposely ignoring it for rhetoric benefit. If it's the former then Wikipedia would vastly simplify any further discussions, if it's the latter then this discussion need not continue.
As to the purpose of the satire it's an absurd mirror to modern life and a thought experiment on the consequences of free breeding without external pressure (see earlier discussion about how intelligence is expensive). It's also an optimistic and comedic take on NIMH when you take it too further conclusions and comparisons.
No, that's not what eugenicist theory means.
Eugenics starts with the statement that left to its' own, self-selecting devices, humanity is in danger of undesirable traits self-selecting in such a way that humanity might/will degenerate into something worse. Therefore, intervention is supposedly needed. That was the starting point of eugenic theories. It doesn't need any action taken, to be a eugenicist theory.
Claiming that eugenics starts at someone actively changing breeding patterns is like claiming that theoretical physics isn't physics.
Well, if you think something wrong, I guess that's a you problem.
You're again describing an eugenicist thought.
Article: Is Intelligence Hereditary? - Scientific American
That's not really a study, nor does it cite any.
Oh...I'm so very sorry. My sincerest apologies. I didn't realize you requested an academic study. What kind of study would you like me to produce for you, my lord? Should it be qualitative? Quantitative? Peer-reviewed?
...or better yet, how about you go fuck yourself? Take your uppity, ill-informed opinions and shove them straight up your tightwad asshole. K? Thaaanks!
... sorry, if I don't put much scientific trust in some article someone wrote? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No need to be butthurt about it.