Pinker really went all out in his questions, they're quite fascinating.

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste? Interesting phenomenon - cognitive pollination, this was Larry Summer's idea I believe. Summers exponds his theories on sex diffs, Pinker does the same on Summers Econ. (it's a very defensible assumption from an Econ 101 standpoint)

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?

woho greg!

Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation?

Cato did something on this before, using elementary supply and demand curves, it was quite convincing in a guilty, autistic fashion.

One reason eugenics is in bad repute is its connection with elite authoritarianism, including leftist elite authoritarianism. Couples who are trying for the perfect baby, and especially couples at risk for genetic disease trying for a healthy baby, are quite a different story.

When people were still angry about E. German sports medicine I realized that systematic breeding and perhaps recombinant DNA were the next steps. IIRC the first of these was realized -- E. German jocks and jockettes were encouraged to marry. (I wouldn't be surprised if high jumpers were specifically encouraged to marry other high jumpers; a shot-putter marrying a high-jumper might not work, though both would have a degree of explosive power.)

I could see sports breeding ending up like dog and horse breeding, producing a proportion of overspecialized individuals who were barely viable.

Eugenics is slow. Technological advance is rapid. Self modification using bio-tech and cyber-tech should make eugenics moot.

Eugenics is slow. Technological advance is rapid. Self modification using bio-tech and cyber-tech should make eugenics moot.

depends on the extent of penetration of the various technologies. looks to me that selective abortion, etc., is feasible on a mass scale already. but life comes at you fast, who knows.

Eugenics is slow.

It also would not result is any "improvement" in the species unless you could catch a desired mutation when it occurred and then breed it true. Weimaraners are probably not any smarter than the smartest wolves. Breeding alone is not going to produce a human that can run the three minute mile. It will only produce greater numbers of fast people.

Dawkins is actually quite correct: any detached interest in human biological variation (i.e. physical anthropology etc.) was effectively proscribed after the nightmare of the Third Reich. Lefties, not completely without merit, have always attached any interest in human variation to concepts of relative worth; unsurprisingly, few realize that many of the same characters, jourals, and even institutions involved in genetics used to to be votaries of eugenics.

Ultimately, it was only from the ashes of eugenics that genetics became legitimate science.

Selective breeding can certainly create new phenotypes never seen before.

On eugenics: I have some ideas that might be worth writing up someday - a number of new approaches, most of which I have not seen discussed in print.

Breeding alone is not going to produce a human that can run the three minute mile. It will only produce greater numbers of fast people.

selection on quantitative traits can often result in traits where at some generation y the mean value of the traits is greater than the highest value of the trait in the proceeding generation y - (n generations). there doesn't need to even be any new mutations, selection changes the allele frequencies so that a host of new combinations begin to form.

there doesn't need to even be any new mutations, selection changes the allele frequencies so that a host of new combinations begin to form.

Yes, but doesn't this imply that the potential for these combinations to form without conscious direction already existed? That seems qualitatively different than a new mutation. It seems that the former has in some way already been selected. Or does current scientific thinking consider these as equivalent?

What is the proportion of phenotype change caused by undirected allele frequency change versus mutation?

What is the proportion of phenotype change caused by undirected allele frequency change versus mutation?

this is an open (and very interesting) question. it appears that selection on a network can lead to considerable change in phenotype without new mutations. see this, for example:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal...abs/ ng1761.html

Speaking of Hitler, how come the Volkswagen Beetle, which he godfathered into existence, has never been tainted by association?

Nice one, Steve. Add anti-smoking campaigns.

The sixties Steve, goddamn hippies. It became all peace and love, were they trying to be ironic? Probably not. The military Kommandeurwagen was a fearsome looking little thing.

Maybe some cross pollination in Britain as well, the popular Mini Cooper emerged in 59, and is in a similar milieu. Mises inst has a bizarre explanation.

That's not entirely true, Steve--you're just too young to remember. In the '50s, there was a certain opprobrium attached to them on the account to which you refer (How many Jews can ride in a VW? Two in front, two in back, and about a thousand in the ash trays.) But it didn't last long and even gained a certain celebrity from its leftish appeal (remember, it's the "peoples'" car), in which its image as an economy car appealed both to frugality and a sense (even then) of being an anti-consumerist and anti--consumption statement.

I have a brother who bought a Ghia with 295,000 miles on it (and without a top). He didn't have to travel much (lived in Sebastopol and worked in SF) but he got another 10+ years out of it.

The problem with all eugenic approaches (beside that of the exercise of central authorities over the lives of their chattels) is that they (and including the "we" of more individual-inspired efforts) have a limited conception of what constitute traits (or even genes) conducive to survival (and lesser markers of success) over the "long haul" of reality. Without reminders, even the comments here seem frequently to anthropomorphize--almost to endow the genes or smaller constituents with the same species of foresight or omniscience that the religious claim for their deity or "intelligent designer." We can only guess, albeit educated with the aid of the other sciences, what shall be the reality of the external environment with which humans might need to contend in order to survive and thrive in that certainly uncertain future.

Take a good look at the race-based distribution curves (Black, White, and Asian) featured in LaGriffe du Lion's most recent piece on why serial killers are more liable to be white. Griffe has plotted the "criminality quotient" just as might be done and has been done--yielding similar distribution curves--for IQ or cognitive abilities. The obviously most successful (at least to this point in terms of achievement) has been the White--the one with the greatest overall variation. Though the point made in the particular essay is different, another might certainly be made: that variation itself has had beneficial effects on and for its possessors.

Might it be that diversity is good, especially intraracial diversity? And how has such diversity (cognitively speaking) come about in at least one group--again, speaking of the white group--less genetically diverse than the presumptive ancestral population? The answer to that question is less important than the gross observation that such diversity certainly may have played a role in the success. The question is "How?"

I have an explanation--at least of sorts. It may not satisfy everyone and I will be the first to admit that it's far from a foregone conclusion. But it has a certain persuasive logic and it certainly cannot be disproven by anything we now know. I will outline it in a separate, following comment.

The advance of civilization has been characterized by increasing levels of occupational specialization. I've called attention to this fact before, recognizing in them merely two aspects of the same thing.

In the modern market economy, which has evolved through more primitive practices, people serve others in order that they may be served. To each get the most of what we may want, we each produce the most of what the others who produce what we want--want themselves. In order to achieve that "most" or a reasonable facsimile thereof, we "specialize" in producing that for which we best fit by our cognitive apparatus, our learned skills, our physical attributes, and our location. We conform generally to the economic concept called the "law of comparative advantage." Complicated as it might sound, it generally just means making the most money in the situation you're in and buying the stuff you want with the proceeds. It applies equally to pieces of land, to individuals, and even to nations.

If everyone wants the job that makes him the most--which one is that? The market conveys that information: supply and demand price all performances. Where there are more seekers for a particular performance than required, competition serves to establish who shall get the gig--even temporarily. In general, the buyer wants as much as he can get of the best quality for as little of his own output as possible--we all know the drill.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of different performances is a cognitive threshold for their successful production. Being a small-scale farmer requires a certain level, being a large-scale farmer may demand another. A truck driver can get by nicely with an IQ more middle-of-the-road than a biochemist or a political essayist. My point is that among a population characterized by the greater spread in cognitive abilities as exemplified in the white cognitive distribution, the process of occupational selection and qualification should be somewhat easier, more easily determinable by who can "do the best job" than in one not so spread. Imagine, for a moment, the problems in a population in which all have identical abilities. How would selection be made? My guess is that it would tend toward some selection on other grounds than in a market society; and, in the socialist model (which incidentally, at core regards all humans as essentially interchangeable), it's the authority that decides (though even they needed to pay some attention to abilities).

I only bring this up to underscore the potential futility (and potentially worse) of efforts to engineer increases in IQ as a presumptive panacea for social problems. I cannot completely rid myself of a hope that we drain more brains from other places (whether England or India) than brawn from south of the border--but I know that our present problems do not arise from having too many of one type and too few of the other (and whichever way one might prefer the balance to lie) but from the inescapable contradictions arising from semi-socialist governance.

Even further (as related to the immigration controversy), most interests of those of lower cognitive abilities are better served by the influx of those substantially higher: greater production of the performances of which they're not capable, greater competition and lower prices for those performances, and less or no competition in their own specialties. But, in a society permeated with redistributionist ideology, the analysis may be skewed by the potential for the newcomers to become part of the redistributionist political bloc to which those of lower cognitive abilities are already adherents.

(I should add in here the note that, although the political power of the left half of the cognitive curve tends toward redistributionist appeals, those appeals are structured and disseminated by those substantially higher on the scale. That should at least provide hope that, if such policies may become discredited (more than now) among the right half, there is at least a chance that such views will penetrate below: nothing is written in stone that should dictate pessimism for the future; remember that optimism is a "default setting."

You cant herd high-iq people. Unless if you have the highest IQ and the brightest idea that they can follow. But their brains are not structured to eternally follow one idea.

Who can control a million madmen?

You cant herd high-iq people. Unless if you have the highest IQ and the brightest idea that they can follow. But their brains are not structured to eternally follow one idea.

Who can control a million madmen?

Stalin. He brutally controlled at least that many scientists and engineers creating and producing war material for the war against the Nazis. Aeronautical engineers whose prototypes failed were taken out and shot!

It seems that the former has in some way already been selected. Or does current scientific thinking consider these as equivalent?

i don't see much of a difference. darwin's thinking was strongly shaped by the knowledge of selective breeding. selection, whether it occurs via human intervention, environmental pressure or social & sexual biases is all pretty much the same in my book. the different labels, natural vs. sexual selection, are conveniences.

Here are some other "Dangerous Ideas" essays, including another by Pinker:
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html

Add [Nazi] anti-smoking campaigns.
And "animal rights." The Nazi War on Cancer (Robert N. Proctor) is quite interesting.

Imagine, for a moment, the problems in a population in which all have identical abilities. How would selection be made?

Israel, which already has a highly intelligent population, is facing this very problem due to mass high IQ migration from Russia. Stories of phd's as security guards etc. However things have a way of working themselves out. The trend could move away from the vast impersonal hierarchies of late capitalism, and back to traditional service provision, mom & pop stores, little shops for whatever kooky things are around then. Traditional service jobs will be robotized, the idea that 'somebody has to dig ditches' may become obsolete, robots will do it. People get along better with those like themselves, with everybody pretty much the same, societies may be more content. People's interests would decide what to do, not the 'authority.'

Everybody wants to be a surgeon? Would never happen, wages would fall until it became unprofitable, in a society where everyone had the same IQ wages would equalize.

russia, russian doctors who are menials

1) remember that language fluency matters. that takes time (sometimes a generation)

2) doctors were low status in the soviet union. they're not super-elite professionals like in other nations

Eugenics is already happening in some countries, at least according to Volkmar Weiss, who believes that present day teenage Finns (IQ of 107) have a higher IQ then their parents (IQ of 97). He also bases this under the assumption that the PISA test is as g-loaded as the IQ test. (which I believe it is)

I am posting thisbecause I noticed that Volkmar Weiss’s theory on Eugenic trends in population groups hasn’t been posted on your website. I was hoping that you would show an article on Gene Expression on the subject, since IQ, eugenics, and dysgenics seems to be a popular topic on your blog. To sum up Volkmar Weiss’s article, he says that certain population groups, such as the Finns, are experiencing an IQ increase in one generation, possibly due to the drop in poverty level. He based this information on the fact that 15 year old Finns are beating the world in PISA tests (including math), which he believes is closely related to intelligence.

He says: “Because Finland with an PISA-IQ of 107 (see above) has only 2.8% of children living in poverty (data mostly from 2001), I had an idea. There are some countries where the IQ-values of the book “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” are lower than the PISA 2003-data, some are higher. The PISA-2003 subjects are born in 1988/89, the subjects of Lynn and Vanhanen were the parents or grandparents of these. A high percentage of children in poverty could be a strong hint to a dysgenic trend in this country, a small percentage a hint to an eugenic trend. Indeed, the first 11 countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, Hungary, Luxemburg, Netherlands) in the “Child Poverty League”, Figure 1, p. 4) have a medium IQ gain (the difference between the Lynn-Vanhanen-data and the PISA 2003 data transformed into IQ) of 3 points (for example, Denmark 2.4% children in poverty, plus 4 IQ points; Finland, 2.8% children in poverty, plus 10 points).”

Source: http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/table.html

He compares the averages of Stanford-Binet IQ tests and PISA-IQ (PISA scores converted in IQ points), which in his mind proves there is a Eugenic trend in Finland and other countries, due to the fact that PISA averages measure the intelligence of the current generation of teenagers, and the Stanford-Binet averages measure the intelligence of their parents (Finns 97 (107), Stanford Binet IQ not in parenthesis, PISA-IQ in parenthesis)

As for the validity of PISA scores relating to intelligence, this is what he says on the subject:

So seen, PISA is the most complex and best IQ Test, which gave it so far ever, which leads to internationally comparable numbers.

(This is actually a translated piece of text, and you will have to go through the source with a translator, and I’ve cited both below)
http://world.altavista.com/
http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/eifrei.html

Here is more on the same german source:
But the sentence: "the Germans are more intelligent than the Turks" are a just as stupid sentence how: "the Wuerttemberger is more intelligent than the Mecklenburger." High-intelligent, middle ones and little-intelligent there are in each country, only their portions is different in the individual countries. On its correct relationship the landlord sheep strength of a country depends to each other. High-talented with a IQ of 130 and, on whose work and inventions a culture and an economy live, that are higher in Korea, Japan and Hong Kong 5% of the tested pupils, in Austria and Germany only at the most 3%. While in Finland approximately 70% all pupil have a IQ more highly than 100, there is in Indonesia less than 5%.Gut trained persons pulls there, where they find work, and thus strengthens differences already existing. North Italy has a IQ of something according to PISA over 100, South Italies with Sicilies of 89.

What mechanism would link lower poverty rate with selection for genes linked to intelligence? It seems like low poverty would link to better environment, and raise IQs that way, but not to selection of smarter people.