/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

<In a letter to the editor of Scotland's Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, "if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill,
<why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?"
Because only a small number of animals can be bread for traits, try breeding elephants, rhinos, zebras, giraffes and so on. It can't be done, people tried and failed for millennia. We know why that is so, cows, dogs, horses, sheep, pigs, donkeys and so on have a special thing (i forgot the technical term) that can copy paste small genetic sequences within it's dna, that's what's making them lets say "biologically moldable". Like most animals humans don't have it, breeding programs will not have any effect, other than filling people with murderous rage that leads them to kill off the abusive "cast of breeding masters". There is no eugenics advocacy, only strangely worded euthanasia requests. What comes on top of this is that humans have very low genetic diversity, we're almost clones, because humanity went through a near extinction event that dwindled our numbers to nearly nothing , so the gene-pool is incredibly shallow to begin with. If we start messing with our own biology we want to add , not subtract genes.

There was a study about increasing the biological potential for intelligence via targeted genetic modifications, and the result is that we might be able to raise the sealing by 2 Eye Q points. Yes Two. The cost benefit ratio is dogshit. Homo sapiens is already incredibly intelligent and improving on that like it's "milk-yield" is difficult, for the same reasons it's difficult to make sophisticated race-cars go faster.

I Have respect for Dawkins because he has been championing Darwin, reason and scientific thinking for a long time, but what he suggests here is refuted nonsense, and actual genetics researchers are furious about this. The reason why Hitler and eugenics is considered evil is because it can't work. And it never was anything more than a ideological excuse to bully and brutalize people. Genes sometimes correspond to traits, like blue eyes really are just the result of a single gene, but most of the time, it doesn't work that way. The way we define traits is very biased and predates rigorous science, that means it doesn't map to biological reality save for exceptions.

In the 20th century, the counter tendency to eugenics, was generalized research for improving health outcomes. Some of the big wins were when we invented stuff like hygene, vaccines, antibiotics,… when we ended famines and did away with environmental toxins (people use to put led in wine for flavor and got heavy metal poisoning). That resulted in better health but a side effect also was a considerable increase in cognitive and athletic performance, which nobody expected. So the direction we want to go with bio tech is generalized genetic health-care, as in figuring out what kind of genes you can add to improve health outcomes. I think we only should add genes because that way we preserve the evolutionary base, and we'll have the option to undo mistakes later.

We don't know how talent for things like music and math works, and talents may not be special features, consider the possibility that average people may just lack brain-health, and if you fix that, you unlock those cognitive skills in everybody. In the past people thought that literacy was a special talent that enabled only a few people to master reading and writing. But today nearly every human on the planet can do it. Be mindful that the intelligentsia does have economic incentives to have a biased view about talents being a rare occurrence, a gift of nature bestowed on few people, rather than a general human potential that could be awakened in many people.

I have a suspicion that mathematics might have been caused by caffeine, the way classical literature was caused by nicotine, the way rock music was caused by THC/CBD and the way interstellar space folding was caused by spice melange

>cows, dogs, horses, sheep, pigs, donkeys and so on have a special thing (i forgot the technical term) that can copy paste small genetic sequences within it's dna
There is nothing particularly special about their genetics among any other mammals. If you're thinking about transposable elements, just about everything has that, including humans.

>I have respect for Dawkins because he has been championing Darwin, reason and scientific thinking for a long time
Biologist here, I have always disliked Dawkins. His selfish gene idea was never particularly amazing (I thought up the same idea in high school), and he has long abused his reputation as a professor to peddle bullshit outside of his specialty. All he has done is stoke among the public needless hostility against biologists.

>>486628
> If you're thinking about transposable elements
No I would have remembered that, it was a very technical term, maybe there's multiple sub-types ? I read a study that specifically investigated why we domesticated certain species and not others, and they came across a uncommon genetic mechanism that was present in all the beasts of burden. They also used it to predict which new species would be viable for domestication. They found a spider that was useful for something. They made a powerful argument why species that lacked this weren't viable candidates.

I didn't save it because at the time this was but an intellectual curiosity. I deeply regret that omission. I'm terrible at knowledge management in general, i just have a bunch of files in a folder that i search through with basic regex string manipulation queries. So even if i did save it, i would have difficulties finding it without remembering at least partial keywords. Since you're an actual scientist do you have a suggestion for brain-crutch software ? preferable something open source.

>Biologist here, I have always disliked Dawkins. His selfish gene idea was never particularly amazing
I know cells use DNA to replicate them selves, and it's obscurantist to invert that. Like saying the microphone speaks through you.

>All he has done is stoke among the public needless hostility against biologists.
He got many people into reading Darwin which still is a pretty good introduction, and he argued religious fundamentalists into exhaustion, not many actually scientists are able and willing to engage in that mud-throwing contest. I give him credit for that public service.

>and he has long abused his reputation as a professor to peddle bullshit outside of his specialty.
I guess that's also true, lets file his eugenics under peddled bullshitt outside of his specialty.

>>486629
>not many actually scientists are able and willing to engage in that mud-throwing contest
Is that even true? Debating creationists is the easiest free smackdown in the world for a biologist and usually leads to cheap public credibility enhancement. It's practically every biology teacher's secret fantasy to have an audience where they can make their profession proud by giving a creationist a black eye. I know I would jump at the opportunity if given the chance.

>suggestion for brain-crutch software
I've barely used it, but Zotero is a source management tool I've heard nice things about.

>>486630
>he easiest free smackdown in the world for a biologist
You don't get it. You're used to debates where you win by refuting your opponents arguments with evidence. Religious fundamentalists on the other hand consider it a virtue to uphold a position that has been refuted. It's playing the game on a higher difficulty setting. They see debate as a rhetorical competition that is won by refusing to change their mind and by making the other side loose composure, by getting under their skin. Trust me it's a mud throwing contest, your academic training is not giving you the advantage you think it does. You'll have to learn how to remain un-phased by a relentless flood of rage-bait.

>I've barely used it, but Zotero is a source management tool I've heard nice things about.
thanks i'll check it out.

>>486628
>Biologist here, I have always disliked Dawkins.

Clarify?

>His selfish gene idea was never particularly amazing (I thought up the same idea in high school),

Just because you had an idea from high school that doesnt mean its automatically a bad idea.
Also, I thought the selfish gene thing was just a sociopolitical impression.
>and he has long abused his reputation as a professor to peddle bullshit outside of his specialty. All he has done is stoke among the public needless hostility against biologists.

>>486630
>Is that even true? Debating creationists is the easiest free smackdown in the world for a biologist and usually leads to cheap public credibility enhancement. It's practically every biology teacher's secret fantasy to have an audience where they can make their profession proud by giving a creationist a black eye. I know I would jump at the opportunity if given the chance.


Tbh, people dont hate on creationists. They just love the spectacle of seeing someone getting pawned.
Also people dont respect academia on its own merit.
Only as weapon developers.

>>486635
>You don't get it. You're used to debates where you win by refuting your opponents arguments with evidence. Religious fundamentalists on the other hand consider it a virtue to uphold a position that has been refuted. It's playing the game on a higher difficulty setting. They see debate as a rhetorical competition that is won by refusing to change their mind and by making the other side loose composure, by getting under their skin. Trust me it's a mud throwing contest, your academic training is not giving you the advantage you think it does. You'll have to learn how to remain un-phased by a relentless flood of rage-bait.


Youll be surprised how many religiopolitical conservative pundits had went to college and have studied science

The thing is, people font respect academia as fact-checkers.
They only respect them as theatrics.
As some cute mature looking sage babbling about new agey things.

>>486641
>Tbh, people dont hate on creationists. They just love the spectacle of seeing someone getting pawned.
>Also people dont respect academia on its own merit.
>Only as weapon developers.
You only get the "weapons science" if you do the hole enlightenment society thing too. It's a packaged-deal. Warhammer40k is not real, if you have an imperial wizard, the most sophisticated weapon you'll get is a catapult. Don't get me wrong i don't want to "pedestule" academia, because that's been somewhat "de-enlightened" as well and they're sometimes chasing phantasms of their own. To be fair most of the damage was done by the neo-liberals who equated more scientific papers with better science.

>Youll be surprised how many religiopolitical conservative pundits had went to college and have studied science
Studying science isn't enough, you also have to practice it.

>The thing is, people font respect academia as fact-checkers.
Yeah the so called "fact checkers" probably aren't really part of the "scientific pantheon" either. Science isn't really compatible with Authorities that declare what "the truth" is. That's more a theocracy thing.

Science is an open arena, instead of gladiators you have hypothesis that battle it out. Instead of taming beasts, they tame the gathered raw data from experiments.
OK maybe that's not the best metaphor.

You sniveling retards always start in whenever I'm not around to beat you down.

If Eugenics worked, where are the results? We have lived under eugenics law for 100 years, and all it has produced are sniveling "yes men" and insufferable smug. Every policy eugenics wanted they have had, imposed by extreme ultraviolence. We have been made to suffer entirely for this Satanic religion, and what can they say for themselves? But, they never needed any excuse. A Satanic race cannot change.

>>486616
>it would interfere with the bodily autonomy of the parent/s what do we do?
definitely avoid doing that, because people like their "bodily autonomy" and will try to kill you.

>>486664
is that a clockwork orange reference in there ?
Nice

>>486664
Hey Eugene I missed you

>>486657
>Science is an open arena, instead of gladiators you have hypothesis that battle it out. Instead of taming beasts, they tame the gathered raw data from experiments.
OK maybe that's not the best metaphor.

Irony is, in the olden days, alot of scientists were involved in some bloodpsort like fencing or night polo.

Intellectuals whenever they had disareements they would duke it out.

>You only get the "weapons science" if you do the hole enlightenment society thing too. It's a packaged-deal. Warhammer40k is not real, if you have an imperial wizard, the most sophisticated weapon you'll get is a catapult.

People confuse academic smarts with technical smarts far too much.

>Don't get me wrong i don't want to "pedestule" academia, because that's been somewhat "de-enlightened" as well and they're sometimes chasing phantasms of their own. To be fair most of the damage was done by the neo-liberals who equated more scientific papers with better science.

Nah, science has been polluated with junk since forever.
In fact, some scientific figures of the past advocated for slavery.
They even pushed race realism.

>>486624
>I have a suspicion that mathematics might have been caused by caffeine, the way classical literature was caused by nicotine, the way rock music was caused by THC/CBD and the way interstellar space folding was caused by spice melange

Wrong. Alcohol has been the universal beverage of all walks of life.
From the bohemian to the layman to the intellectual.

>>486681
Alcohol is a great preserving agent for "liquid food", and an excellent disinfectant for wounds. And during some periods of history drinking slightly alcoholic beverages probably was the safer option because water supplies could be dodgy, as in bacterial contamination. Alcohol is great at killing bacteria. Alcohol is also a cleaning agent and can be fuel if you can get the concentration high enough. So definitely a very practicle contribution to civilization.

However I've never heard of alcohol being used for creative/productive enhancing cognitive effects. I'm probably not remembering it correctly but Alcohol stimulates the secretion of the gaba neurotransmitter, which is a neuro-depressant, it kinda slows down your brain and it gives you tunnel vision as in narrow focus. Most people become useless if they go beyond slightly inebriated. Do you mind explaining what cognitive effects people get out of drinking booze other than a buzz at parties?

>>486677
>Irony is, in the olden days, alot of scientists were involved in some bloodpsort like fencing or night polo.
>Intellectuals whenever they had disareements they would duke it out.
You probably aren't trying to tell me that being better at poking somebody with a metal stick is a reliable way to distinguish who is right about scientific questions. Although given the excessive hostility against scientific curiosity that existed for long periods in human history, it would make sense that fighting-skill would complement science-skill in terms of survival.
If you are implying that weapons research is driving science, color me skeptical. There definitely are some examples of that happening. But lately ? Know any weapons research that has really pushed scientific boundaries ?

>People confuse academic smarts with technical smarts far too much.
I think you need engineers and theoreticians to complement each other.

>Nah, science has been polluated with junk since forever.
>In fact, some scientific figures of the past advocated for slavery.
>They even pushed race realism.
Fair point. I guess it would be more correct to say the enlightenment is incomplete.