Neo-Eugenics (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

umm The state.
This is china we are talking about.

 

[miss_b]

umm The state.
This is china we are talking about.

Doesn't this mean it wouldn't work in any of the western countries because it's undemocratic?

 

[transcendent]

I don't mind genetic engineering. It's a good thing to be discovering what exactly makes us the way we are. For all the defects I believe science will eventually solve alot of the problems, not all of them, but it will also create new problems.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Positive eugenics is very dangerous however...

Incorrect [...]

You misunderstand: I did not mean dangerous to do practically, I meant dangerous morally.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The dominant role of heredity in determining IQ is not a theory, it's an established fact, the consensus of hundreds of studies conducted in different times and places by many different researchers. But the public is largely unaware of this fact because the liberal media have told them repeatedly that most experts in IQ testing believe IQ is largely environmental. In reality, the majority of researchers in the field of intelligence testing believes heredity is the more important factor (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988).

You have obviously never studied psychology.

1. Researches don't even agree what intelligence is in the first place.

2. Secondly, there is much evidence to counter the pure dominance of hereditory intelligence, and in fact the most convincing position seems to be that it is a combination of environment and genetics -- and not genetics over environment by either (a) an overwhelming amount or (b) a clearly definable amount. A lot more research has been done since the 1988 study you referenced (or copy and pasted more likely).