Yep. Also known as mutational burden, genetic load, etc. Most mutations are neutral to slightly deleterious, and tend to accumulate in the absence of selective pressure to purge them, selective pressure which can be relaxed in any number of ways (including simply having a smaller population size). A lot of negative psychological traits just look like random hits to neuronally expressed genes -- get enough malfunctions and you get true pathology, but there's a lot of in between. If we could do CRISPR on a large enough scale we really could make supermen, even just given current GWAS findings. Hell, given the premises of nearly-neutral theory, just a consensus genome over a large enough population would produce people I wouldn't want to tangle with -- we wouldn't even need to know the associations.
It's also no coincidence that if you look at enough mugshots of Antifa arrests in Portland (thanks Andy Ngo!) you get the sense that "these kids ain't right." Like really, genetically, not right.
It has been my personal, life-changing experience to witness the effect of physiology on my mental, social, overall capacity. Fixing my gut bacteria increased my IQ by 10 poins. It was Nietzsche's insight that physiology plays a major role in people's destiny. Wouldn't be surprised if toxins and endocrine disruptors play a role here.
Spoiler....there's a But coming. The Enlightenment idea of 'All Men Are Created Equal" was a great one and contributed to three marvelous centuries of Western Liberalism. But maybe all great ideas - like everything else - are subject to entropy. They eventually dissolve into a heap of nonsense. And here we are.
Calling ol' Tommy Jefferson a liar now, are we? Given his impressive accomplishments in a wide range of disciplines, and without knowing anything about you, I'd wager he's a mite bit genetically superior to you. So you need sit your weak genetically inferior ass down and don't criticize those above you.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, there's little evidence that he was so daft as to assert that all men were equal in abilities, everyday life experience put the lie to that. Current scholarly interpretation is that he meant that all men are equally created by God and share in their inalienable natural rights derived from that status (Whatsoever You Do to the Least of My Brothers You Do unto Me), including the right to form a representative government free of tyranny.
A sentiment which I still support, though such stuffy Enlightenment principles are highly unfashionable in the Current Year.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yeah he was the big peace love and understanding hippie of the Founders, but to go from that straight to the Strong must Rule over the Weak is a bit of a leap. That's pretty much how life was on the Central Asian steppes for thousands of years and history is filled with tribes desperately trying to _escape_ that lifestyle, or at least find some civilized Weaklings whom they could Rule with their Strength. I think in many ways the English system of rights makes more sense, except . . . look where that has gotten them.
Yeah, I was really looking for an explanation of my various qualities.
Yep. Also known as mutational burden, genetic load, etc. Most mutations are neutral to slightly deleterious, and tend to accumulate in the absence of selective pressure to purge them, selective pressure which can be relaxed in any number of ways (including simply having a smaller population size). A lot of negative psychological traits just look like random hits to neuronally expressed genes -- get enough malfunctions and you get true pathology, but there's a lot of in between. If we could do CRISPR on a large enough scale we really could make supermen, even just given current GWAS findings. Hell, given the premises of nearly-neutral theory, just a consensus genome over a large enough population would produce people I wouldn't want to tangle with -- we wouldn't even need to know the associations.
It's also no coincidence that if you look at enough mugshots of Antifa arrests in Portland (thanks Andy Ngo!) you get the sense that "these kids ain't right." Like really, genetically, not right.
'even just given current GWAS findings.'
You mean through embryo selection?
-- Matt
It has been my personal, life-changing experience to witness the effect of physiology on my mental, social, overall capacity. Fixing my gut bacteria increased my IQ by 10 poins. It was Nietzsche's insight that physiology plays a major role in people's destiny. Wouldn't be surprised if toxins and endocrine disruptors play a role here.
What type of stuff did you do to fix it?
Lactobacillus reuteri probiotics, by mistake, because I thought I had H. Pylori. Everything changed since then.
Spoiler....there's a But coming. The Enlightenment idea of 'All Men Are Created Equal" was a great one and contributed to three marvelous centuries of Western Liberalism. But maybe all great ideas - like everything else - are subject to entropy. They eventually dissolve into a heap of nonsense. And here we are.
I work with GE animals and... I think this is along the right track.
Calling ol' Tommy Jefferson a liar now, are we? Given his impressive accomplishments in a wide range of disciplines, and without knowing anything about you, I'd wager he's a mite bit genetically superior to you. So you need sit your weak genetically inferior ass down and don't criticize those above you.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, there's little evidence that he was so daft as to assert that all men were equal in abilities, everyday life experience put the lie to that. Current scholarly interpretation is that he meant that all men are equally created by God and share in their inalienable natural rights derived from that status (Whatsoever You Do to the Least of My Brothers You Do unto Me), including the right to form a representative government free of tyranny.
A sentiment which I still support, though such stuffy Enlightenment principles are highly unfashionable in the Current Year.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yeah he was the big peace love and understanding hippie of the Founders, but to go from that straight to the Strong must Rule over the Weak is a bit of a leap. That's pretty much how life was on the Central Asian steppes for thousands of years and history is filled with tribes desperately trying to _escape_ that lifestyle, or at least find some civilized Weaklings whom they could Rule with their Strength. I think in many ways the English system of rights makes more sense, except . . . look where that has gotten them.
The Bible too can be quoted to support tranny-sm, it doesn't make the Bible tranny.
Why would it be preferable for the strong to rule over the weak? You seem to treat this as a given.