• Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    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).

    • Coach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Genes make a substantial difference, but they are not the whole story. They account for about half of all differences in intelligence among people, so half is not caused by genetic differences, which provides strong support for the importance of environmental factors. This estimate of 50 percent reflects the results of twin, adoption and DNA studies. From them, we know, for example, that later in life, children adopted away from their biological parents at birth are just as similar to their biological parents as are children reared by their biological parents. Similarly, we know that adoptive parents and their adopted children do not typically resemble one another in intelligence.

      Article: Is Intelligence Hereditary? - Scientific American

        • Coach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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!

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            … sorry, if I don’t put much scientific trust in some article someone wrote? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

            No need to be butthurt about it.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        The movie suggests a self selecting breeding program that de-prioritizes intelligence.

        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?

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            First Eugenics has an outsider making breeding choices not the breeders that’s the point of self selecting.

            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.

            Second I don’t think you even conceptually understand theoretic/metaphoric modeling

            Well, if you think something wrong, I guess that’s a you problem.

            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).

            You’re again describing an eugenicist thought.