I was thinking of Eugenics recently.
Basically it's the idea that selective breeding will bring about smarter, stronger people. And it has sound theory in that you end up weeding out poor genetic stock. However it also misses the point in many areas. My father is not an idiot but isn't a genius, neither of his parents were great either. My grandparents on my mothers side were also poor physical specimens and my grandmother may or may not be capable of high thought. However my mother is high functioning with a strong school based ability to learn, but not much more.
My brother and I are both very intelligent and have varying levels of anger, and social issues, but both of us are capable of physical feats. And with the right environmental conditions we could both achieve just about anything we had put our minds to.
It does suggest that we would have a very hard time actually putting Eugenics into practice in a manner that would actually be beneficial. And more so it would be possible to use selective breeding to use the right DNA combinations to actually improve the gene's of people.
More so it is possible to see that when two people of different races breed you can have traits from a great great great grandparent show up generations later. ie I went to school with a guy whose parents were both Northern European, at some point in the late 18th century one of his ancestors was black. that was about 10 generations back. Until I meet his parents I had no idea he wasn't black, they were divorced of course, as the father didn't know he had a black ancestor until his sons grade 8 year and he found out through a school project.
So at this point how do we actually put such a concept into practice with out strong genetic screening and a testing of every marker to know exactly what you are mixing. Then to add to that further how do you account for natural mutation of the genome.
In the end it is very difficult to ensure everything runs smoothly. In fact the only positive that has ever come out of Eugenics isn't even from it. The protection of stock from inbreeding was known for some time. The Catholic Church for the longest time needed a couple to be more then 6 generations apart (I believe) thus allowing a limiting of mixing genes to prevent genetic issues.
This is an added issue with Eugenics on a small scale as it will eventually actually hinder it's cause by increasing inbreeding issues within a few generations, which leads to birth defects and mental illness.
In the case of my brother and I, we both developed a strong ability to learn through our upbringing. We moved well over 10 times growing up, allowing us enough time to learn the lay of the land in new area's and helping to develop a compartmentalized memory allowing faster and longer term recall. Today I can still describe the home I lived in 25 years ago down to small details, and the preceding 25 homes as well.
This allowed me to learn a lot growing up as well as my brother, we could and can draw unusual conclusions in class that often confused our teachers as we had the right background information and the ability to see patterns to make leaps of logic. It also left us bored with class work which took too long to get through, as we absorbed the information and wanted to move on to the next item, resulting in low grades (I had a 52% average in high school, while having the reputation of being very smart)
We were also encouraged to be physically active, playing sports, running and climbing, by the time I was 19 I was only 98lbs but I was strong enough to lift a small car off the ground, or pull a large vehicle, I had even pushed a truck out a snow bank with a tree as a brace. (using a combination of body strength and physics)
I was smart, strong, and had most of the markers that would be tried to breed into a person via Eugenics. All that was missing was the nurtured trait of ambition, to focus my abilities into something useful, rather then being a jack of all trades (not that I regret it)
So if my parents were both of "inferior" stock how is that both my brother and I had the qualities if not the ambition (a nurtured, not breed quality) of "superior" stock. (not that I consider myself nor my brother superior at all). It is my opinion that correct nurturing and the combination of genetic material will always create unique out comes no matter what screening you do. The best screening will still see a possibility for cruel people, or undesired traits.
It is through this highly unscientific yet readily available anecdotal evidence that I can't understand why such a theory ever had weight. And yet we are moving back towards it in the idea of DNA testing and altering DNA which though not possible yet is getting closer.
Though those that view it as good are usually at least, possessing good intentions.
Basically it's the idea that selective breeding will bring about smarter, stronger people. And it has sound theory in that you end up weeding out poor genetic stock. However it also misses the point in many areas. My father is not an idiot but isn't a genius, neither of his parents were great either. My grandparents on my mothers side were also poor physical specimens and my grandmother may or may not be capable of high thought. However my mother is high functioning with a strong school based ability to learn, but not much more.
My brother and I are both very intelligent and have varying levels of anger, and social issues, but both of us are capable of physical feats. And with the right environmental conditions we could both achieve just about anything we had put our minds to.
It does suggest that we would have a very hard time actually putting Eugenics into practice in a manner that would actually be beneficial. And more so it would be possible to use selective breeding to use the right DNA combinations to actually improve the gene's of people.
More so it is possible to see that when two people of different races breed you can have traits from a great great great grandparent show up generations later. ie I went to school with a guy whose parents were both Northern European, at some point in the late 18th century one of his ancestors was black. that was about 10 generations back. Until I meet his parents I had no idea he wasn't black, they were divorced of course, as the father didn't know he had a black ancestor until his sons grade 8 year and he found out through a school project.
So at this point how do we actually put such a concept into practice with out strong genetic screening and a testing of every marker to know exactly what you are mixing. Then to add to that further how do you account for natural mutation of the genome.
In the end it is very difficult to ensure everything runs smoothly. In fact the only positive that has ever come out of Eugenics isn't even from it. The protection of stock from inbreeding was known for some time. The Catholic Church for the longest time needed a couple to be more then 6 generations apart (I believe) thus allowing a limiting of mixing genes to prevent genetic issues.
This is an added issue with Eugenics on a small scale as it will eventually actually hinder it's cause by increasing inbreeding issues within a few generations, which leads to birth defects and mental illness.
In the case of my brother and I, we both developed a strong ability to learn through our upbringing. We moved well over 10 times growing up, allowing us enough time to learn the lay of the land in new area's and helping to develop a compartmentalized memory allowing faster and longer term recall. Today I can still describe the home I lived in 25 years ago down to small details, and the preceding 25 homes as well.
This allowed me to learn a lot growing up as well as my brother, we could and can draw unusual conclusions in class that often confused our teachers as we had the right background information and the ability to see patterns to make leaps of logic. It also left us bored with class work which took too long to get through, as we absorbed the information and wanted to move on to the next item, resulting in low grades (I had a 52% average in high school, while having the reputation of being very smart)
We were also encouraged to be physically active, playing sports, running and climbing, by the time I was 19 I was only 98lbs but I was strong enough to lift a small car off the ground, or pull a large vehicle, I had even pushed a truck out a snow bank with a tree as a brace. (using a combination of body strength and physics)
I was smart, strong, and had most of the markers that would be tried to breed into a person via Eugenics. All that was missing was the nurtured trait of ambition, to focus my abilities into something useful, rather then being a jack of all trades (not that I regret it)
So if my parents were both of "inferior" stock how is that both my brother and I had the qualities if not the ambition (a nurtured, not breed quality) of "superior" stock. (not that I consider myself nor my brother superior at all). It is my opinion that correct nurturing and the combination of genetic material will always create unique out comes no matter what screening you do. The best screening will still see a possibility for cruel people, or undesired traits.
It is through this highly unscientific yet readily available anecdotal evidence that I can't understand why such a theory ever had weight. And yet we are moving back towards it in the idea of DNA testing and altering DNA which though not possible yet is getting closer.
Though those that view it as good are usually at least, possessing good intentions.