[geeks] Mac definitions

[Mouse]

>> True.  I often think that we go too far in efforts to protect the
>> stupid from their own stupidity, when all of the rest of us would be
>> better off were more of the stupid allowed to select themselves out
>> of the gene pool.

Perhaps.  But why stop at stupidity?  Why not allow athsma,
nearsightedness, hfmophilia, diabetes, delusional paranoia, depression,
etc, to select against their sufferers?

We (FWVO "we") have decided it's worth keeping individuals in the gene
pool even if they have traits that would have been selected against in
the past.

>From one point of view, it's wrecking the gene pool: the fraction of
the human race carrying, say, the genes for hfmophilia, is steadily
(albeit slowly) rising.

But from another, it's not.  My own nearsightedness, for exmaple, is
_almost_ no handicap at all in today's world, so why would it be
"wrecking the gene pool" to let it spread?  The environment has changed
and it's no longer an issue, so, well, shrug.

Why is stupidity any different?  (To some extent I'm playing devil's
advocate here, but not totally.  I also am fully aware that some of
those traits are not wholly genetic; since this is discussing "the gene
pool", all we need to stipulate is that there is a genetic contribution
to them - and, for most of the ones I listed, I believe there is.  Any
for which there isn't can be removed from the list and the rest of the
argument still applies.)

> The only problem with that is that may take out a smart one and the
> gene pool remains unchanged.

As long as the choice of whom else to take out is random, as long as
it's not correlated with any trait we (again, FWVO "we") want to
preserve, this is not a problem.  People suffer random deaths all the
time; random deaths from someone else's bad driving are really no
different from random deaths from lightning strikes or any other
uncorrelated cause, as far as maintenance of the gene pool goes.

Furthermore, I'm not sure we _want_ to let perceived goodness of
individuals drive what gets kept in the gene pool.  There's a word for
that, a word with negative connoations - and IMO deservedly so, because
once started this doesn't stop easily, and, historically, it goes in
some very ugly directions.  (The word I refer to is "eugenics".)

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B