The growing divide in genetic quality as main reason for social and political divide today

[Outlooker]

The working- and underclass are being reduced to an inferior kind of human and become locked in this state.

The inferior people have been hopelessly left behind.

There is an ongoing class divide in society based on genetic quality - genes for beauty, IQ, willpower, health.

The people with superior genes have overtaken the inferior people and are getting ahead more and more - socially,

in education, economically, culturally.

Social class is basically a function of genetic class.

How far one comes in life, how educated, successful and rich one can be is limited by biology, by one's genetic makeup.

Those with superior genes almost never reproduce with those of inferior genes today.

The upper class greatly cares for eugenics as true basis for their superiority - for example Warren Buffett only received his wife from her father after he successfully took an IQ test - 70 years ago, when almost nobody in the public even knew about the concept of IQ.

(This was different in the past - aristocracy basically legally raped their servants, later successful men married their secretaries (if they were healthy and beautiful) - this resulted in an influx of

superior genes in the underclasses, a genetic mixing of the social classes, and allowed - in the following generations - for some social advance.)

Not so today: Underclass people reproduce with underclass people, and upper class people reproduce with superior people, only.

The middle class dissolves - its individuals either become upper class or fall down to lower class.

Therefore, the genetic divide will only grow wider - until the superior humans will become a homo superior, and the regular humans will be reduced to an Orc-like state.

The superior people, by natural and sexual selection, will become ever more healthy, smart, intelligent, ambitious and beautiful-

while the inferior people will stay ugly, stupid, lazy and diseased, because their genes are never improved by mixing with superior genes.

Basically, there is an enrichment of good genes towards the upper class, that is, superior genes wander up, and inferior genes down the social ladder.

Therefore, a meritocracy and economic sexual freedom results in a feudal aristocracy on a genetic basis.

One could even say, that a true meritocracy must grow into a feudal system based on genetic quality.

This effect is, I think, the driving cause for what we see today and will see in economical, sexual and political divide - society, people divide themselves ever more in genetic quality.

The controversy in political opinion, economic, sexual and educational matters becomes more intense - because inferior humans are being left behind, and hopelessly left behind, because

there is no cure for having inferior genes - inferior people simply cannot successfully compete with superior people, no matter how much they try.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Outlooker

[Anderson]

Sad conclusions.

How then the oligarchy in Russia and China survived if we took genocide on all the aristocracy? Nomenclature and upper class people can often be as ill-fated as a bum. Junkie senator's son is as equal in an overdose as a lowlife gets in a convulsion. Can't beat the enigmatic cycles of life. And life is beautiful!

Edited June 11, 2017 by Anderson

[Springheel]

There is an ongoing class divide in society based on genetic quality - genes for beauty, IQ, willpower, health.

How do you explain Donald Trump then?

[Outlooker]

How do you explain Donald Trump then?

 

There are at least two interpretations of your question, I'll answer both.

 

1)

By the very same reason:

A lot of lower class workers feel like they have been abandoned by society, by progress, by economic growth and sexual access to high-value mates.

On one side of society is misery, stagnant wages, unemployment, failing infrastructure, an obesity epidemic, raging crime, drug and entertainment addiction and such problems, even (1st time) life expectancy reductions.

On the other side of society there is a rising number of millionaires, steady wealth increases, an explosion in academic, scientific, cultural and economic progress.

Those genetically inferior, low-class people feel like they have left behind in the social garbage bin, while the genetically superior people are kind of completely removed from their reality.

And their feelings are true - the working and underclasses have been "outclassed".

The success of the better people is not only vastly greater - it keeps accelerating!

The lower classes are angry, hateful and desperate even. They do not really understand modern society, the modern world anymore. But they understand that they are the bottom of the barrel, that they are even struggling getting

minimum-wage jobs.

Like any politician worth his salt, Trump counted on their envy and hatred and promised them jobs, increased living standards, and, at least rhetorically, to punish those "city elites", as they are often described.

He gave the underclasses hope, and the underclasses got out to vote for him, instead to stay home depressed, in front of the TV, downing another six-pack.

 

 

2)

You may argue that Trump is stupid and clearly not an example for a human of superior genetic quality.

First, he is only a specific example, not a general trend as outlined above - for now, we are talking about averages that move/diverge - dramatic results will arrive gradually in the future.

Second, while he is overweight and seems to suffer from narcissism, he clearly is way better than the average of his age (most of those are fatter, sicker, poorer and much less objectively mentally fit).

Third, widespread real freedom in individual mate choice and economic competition is a very recent phenomenon - it exists at most for two or three generations. The eugenic effects and divide of social class due to divide in

genetic quality by sexual selection can already be seen, but will really accelerate in effect just now and in the future.

 

 

 

We are living, evolutionary, in a time of revolutionary change that may be unprecedented.

For example, in the past, those with a higher sex drive, higher propensity to adultery, rape or promiscuity tended to have higher numbers of offspring, explaining the high frequencies of these traits in the current population.

However, with the advent of low-risk abortions and reliable, cheap contraceptives, sheer hornyness and high insemination frequency with different mates will not longer - FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY - result in a higher number of offspring!

Still, evolution goes on, of course - only those traits of people who actually have offspring are transmitted into the next generation.

Statistically we can observe that only the lower and upper classes have high numbers of offspring - the former because they are reckless and desire welfare monies for their children,

and the latter because they have the economic means and want to spread their genes and, therefore, increase their power and social control as a social class even more.

Squeezed in the middle is the current middle class, with, globally (in the developed world) the lowest fertility rates generally.

This also will and must contribute not only qualitatively, but quantitatively to the effect explained in my post above - middle class not only vanishes by either joining upper or lower classes, but also by sheer numbers of offspring.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Outlooker

[nbohr1more]

I think this thesis is only applicable is small regional demographics where in-breeding or ghetto-izaton have

had some anomalous affect on the intelligence levels (etc).

 

When you're speaking about stratification in social classes due to aptitude, you are largely speaking about a very

small genetic advantage having a very large effect. We fairly regularly see examples of lower class folks who rise-up

from their ranks to wealth, academic stature, etc. Unless you believe that somehow "architectural super-intelligence"

randomly springs forth from these populations, the conclusion must be that the difference between those at the top aptitudes

and the bottom are not that different genetically and therefore small genetic variance can endow some members

of those population with enough advantage to rise up.

 

TLDR; I don't think we're anywhere close to HG Wells "Eloi vs Morlocks" in terms of stratification.

 

The real zeitgeist of our time is the march towards automation and AI. These shifts are unlike anything the human race has faced

before and nobody has a clear answer for what it means to a Democratic Capitalist society.

 

The wealthiest 1% are deciding whether the benefits of a large consumer base with disposable income outweigh

the benefits of wealth inequality which perpetuates their power consolidation. Do we artificially prop-up a working class so

they have money to spend on products? Or do we continue to allow all classes to slide into poverty so that only the

moderately wealthy are the consumer base for the ultra-rich? Do either of these "solutions" even work?

Do we go the third way and move closer to socialism to reduce the importance of the "human employment" discussion?

 

Trump represents the "prop-up the working class artificially" camp where you basically follow a Luddite course of action and resurrect

obsolete industries and practices to wind back the clock to when more humans were actually employable.

 

Unless he can somehow turn the nation into some strange Amish-like adherents for "human labor produced products"

(eerily similar to the perpetual 1999 concept in The Matrix films), the plan will ultimately fail and break-down.

 

Heh, I guess Portland's retro "artisan works" cult would be the national model!

(Ironic that the area of the Country that hates Trump the most would be most aligned with his crazy Luddite agenda).

[jaxa]

I think not. Yet.

 

If you start out with wealth, you have a much better chance of succeeding in life. Here's a few words about rent seeking:

 

Tullock paradox refers to the apparent paradox, described by Tullock, on the low costs of rent-seeking relative to the gains from rent-seeking.

The paradox is that rent-seekers wanting political favors can bribe politicians at a cost much lower than the value of the favor to the rent-seeker. For instance, a rent seeker who hopes to gain a billion dollars from a particular political policy may need to bribe politicians only to the tune of ten million dollars, which is about 1% of the gain to the rent-seeker. Luigi Zingales frames it by asking, "Why is there so little money in politics?" because a naive model of political bribery and/or campaign spending should result in beneficiaries of government subsidies being willing to spend an amount up to the value of the subsidies themselves, when in fact only a small fraction of that is spent.

 

 

Literal rent seeking from tenants is usually very lucrative. Keep your risks low by not gambling on stocks, make sure to get insurance, and you can live a cushy life with just a handful of properties. I think we've all met that one landlord. Ask them how their Wednesday went: "Oh, I had to go get my Mercedes detailed." If their wealth is inherited, their beauty or IQ does not matter much.

 

Intelligence (which itself has many factors, including genetic) isn't the only factor determining success. Wealth of the parents and other benefactors is a big deal. Social charisma is another. Even someone with "low-moderate intelligence" who is also "ugly" can have a charismatic personality that makes up the difference. People with wealth can easily live in areas with less lead in the soil, and give their children better educations.

 

Let's take a look at the "Eloi vs. Morlocks" scenario. We don't have as much selection pressure anymore. For example, people with previously fatal or extremely disadvantageous genetic diseases can survive and reproduce. Look at hemophilia, which was called the "royal disease" due to the mutations being spread throughout multiple royal families. Even though it could cause you to die from minor accidents, the genes kept getting passed on. Royalty with hemophilia could be said to be genetically inferior, but their wealth allowed them to persist despite that. And today, there are treatments for hemophilia and talk of genetic therapy.

 

Certainly, rich people have a better chance of getting good health care and access to the latest treatments. That wealth could allow them to live despite having inferior genes. When it comes to gene therapy, the problems of having inferior genes while being wealthy may be smoothed over to an even greater degree. But gene therapy is still a reaction to problems that already exist and the changes due to treatment are not necessarily heritable. You have to go further in order to create super elites.

 

That's where designer babies come in. That is the technology that will be able to firmly establish Outlooker's Elysium dream. Two people can contribute DNA to create many embryos, which could then be hit with error-prone but somewhat effective CRISPR methods, and then each embryo can be screened for viability and to see if the desired genetic changes took place. Although donor eggs could be used, they will likely be created from scratch in the future. At no small cost. Remember that the relevant technologies are always improving; for example, there are already more advanced and effective CRISPR methods than the ones used in a widely criticized 2015 germline modification study.

 

What could you change? You could influence traits like eye color, height, appearance, and intelligence to start. Although many aspects of the human genome are not fully understood, machine learning and the advent of cheap mass sequencing will make it clear which genes correspond to certain positive traits. The Human Genome Project cost under $3 billion. Now we have projects like this.

 

As I said, there are more than just genetic factors determining intelligence, but being able to influence intelligence upward by just a few "points" could begin to result in the distinct genetic class Outlooker expects. It is more profitable for the companies offering these services to allow the selection of multiple traits. The article also notes that IVF is increasing in popularity in China and embryo selection (or editing) could thrive there, far outside the reach of puritans. Even if these techniques become banned in the West, which might be tough if the elites want it, the elites can just shop around the world to find the countries willing to allow the procedures to be performed. A middle class family might be able to fly to China and get the procedure done, but multi-millionaires and billionaires will be able to do it without batting an eye.

 

Some will resist this due to their values or religion. If the genetic changes have a moderate impact, the resistance could gradually exit from the elite gene pool.

 

Having said all that, we shouldn't expect the results to be as black and white as Eloi vs. Morlocks. But if people with wealth can definitively grant their offspring beauty, intelligence, and height (any of which can result in higher incomes) as well as freedom from genetic diseases, then those offspring will have a better chance at becoming movie stars, genius scientists, CEOs, heads of state, etc.

 

Anderson brings up a good point. The plebs can rise up against the elites. That's why it's important for the elites to come up with some mighty fine entertainment and distractions for their subjects. No wonder Facebook and Oculus are part of the same company. Grudgingly, the elites may have to use universal basic income to keep the plebs in check, once mass automation allows wealthy capitalists to concentrate their resources even further. Mass surveillance using the global pwnage network and drones will help fill in the gaps.

Edited June 12, 2017 by jaxa

[duzenko]

Can we attach a poll to this topic on whether forum members consider themselves a genetically superior/inferior class?

Four options:

1) I am G-superiour

2) I am G-inferior

3) Don't know/haven't decided

4) There is no such thing.

[Anderson]

I'm not sure the start of the discussion is correct. Is genetic equality even a thing? Only in communism people are presumed equal. Is the conclusion we're going to having a "us vs. them" rethoric?

 

The folly that we can be lead to is that apriori all low class genes have no guilt and should not have no obligation or incentive to overcome their condition. In consequence all upper class genes = evil because we can't change them.

 

Division is always present but it depends where you live to figure the proportions. Even Switzerland has foreign people working almost slave labour for quick money to bring to their home country, and the family they are feeding might be trying to breakthrough into middle class or even upper class given the initiative, the effort and honest work. Therefore it's definitely exaggerated here again. It's bad in China/Russia and elsewhere but the world's not perfect

The poor are not stuck in feudalism. The caste thing works in India. The ones who care about themselves and want something better can work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. Then leave something for social security and get well deserved rest. After that maybe try something else in life. Develop themselves personally and whatnot.

 

Aren't people like Rob Dougan supposed to inspire for that? https://robdougan.wordpress.com/

 

That's what matters. You can't save everyone and not everyone wants to be saved. Inevitably there's always going to be people who want a freebie. And we can't do anything about that. Much less is my wish to have them rule us if the next revolution comes.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Anderson

[stumpy]

there so much inbreeding in the upper class that they are likely to turn into frogs due to genetic corruption.

[Sotha]

God, this topic would be awesome to discuss in person in a nice restaurant while enjoying some high quality alcoholic beverages.. But sadly I do not have anymore time to discuss these online in written form. Dammit!

[jaxa]

God, this topic would be awesome to discuss in person in a nice restaurant while enjoying some high quality alcoholic beverages.. But sadly I do not have anymore time to discuss these online in written form. Dammit!

 

If only we had global universal basic income.

[CarltonTroisi]

Can we attach a poll to this topic on whether forum members consider themselves a genetically superior/inferior class?

Four options:

1) I am G-superiour

2) I am G-inferior

3) Don't know/haven't decided

4) There is no such thing.

 

I'm with you on this. I think this whole thing is like a sadistic rant. That's all I can take away from it at this point, as this topic keeps getting brought up, with ever more coarse and disturbing language used to describe what they call "genetic crap."

[jaxa]

 

I'm with you on this. I think this whole thing is like a sadistic rant. That's all I can take away from it at this point, as this topic keeps getting brought up, with ever more coarse and disturbing language used to describe what they call "genetic crap."

 

If you don't like the language that was used, it can be rephrased as:

1. Income inequality could lead to speciation (the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution)

2. People with wealth tend to mate with other wealthy people (and poor with poor)

 

It would be pretty bizarre to have any sort of meaningful evolution occur in such a short timespan. Designer babies could speed things up by allowing the rich to make extensive and controlled genetic changes to their offspring, which could pose a barrier to entry for poorer people even if the service cost just $1,000.

 

The research is still in its infancy. It may only be possible to "increase IQ" (acknowledging that IQ as a metric has its flaws) by a few points as a result of dozens of intelligence related gene edits. But that may be enough to exasperate the income inequality issue if smarter people tend to rake in more money. The smart, rich people who were designer babies will be able to exploit a generation worth of advances in genetic engineering when it comes time for the next generation to be produced.

[Anderson]

If only we had global universal basic income.

If anyone is from Nordic countries, tell us how that works out. Sounds like a communist narrative.

If a bum asks for money, what's the chance he won't spend them on booze? Better give him food and a job. But money is seldom a great choice. And it's sad. There's a thing called consciousness. And everyone's mind will listen.

[Destined]

The research is still in its infancy. It may only be possible to "increase IQ" (acknowledging that IQ as a metric has its flaws) by a few points as a result of dozens of intelligence related gene edits. But that may be enough to exasperate the income inequality issue if smarter people tend to rake in more money. The smart, rich people who were designer babies will be able to exploit a generation worth of advances in genetic engineering when it comes time for the next generation to be produced.

I think it will not be possible to increase the IQ solely by changing genetics. The development of the brain is very complex and, ironically, right now especially the "elite" is dumbing down their own children by excessive use of electronics. Two year olds are able to unlock smartphones, and they are extenisvely used, because it keeps children quiet. However, this impedes brain development, as these children experience less stimulation through other senses and tend to be worse regarding mobility. My cousin works in occupational therapy and told me that many children are not able to walk along a straight line or balance on one leg. Consequently, the brain misses links that would have been made, if the child would have moved more and this reduces intelligence. So, even if you have a genetic advantage regarding your intelligence, it will be for naught if you are not challenged and recieve too little input, that covers all your senses and your motor skills and not only the "logical thinking" part, that many think is the only thing necessary for higher intelligence.

[Sotha]

If anyone is from Nordic countries, tell us how that works out. Sounds like a communist narrative.

If a bum asks for money, what's the chance he won't spend them on booze? Better give him food and a job. But money is seldom a great choice. And it's sad. There's a thing called consciousness. And everyone's mind will listen.

 

I guess basic income must become reality as soon as robots and machines replace humans in most workplaces. It is either basic income and societal stability or few ultra-rich people who own the production machines and destitute people who want to destroy the rich.

 

I do not know what the basic income commoner will do in the future: people get money for free and hang around in virtual realities doing nothing? Or perhaps basic income requires people to contribute at least something to the society: something small that is within their capabilities: the robots will do it better, but humans do it for joy. A "soft sector" of sorts will emerge.

 

And about the bum who wants booze. They do not really want the booze. Something horrible has happened to them and they need help. Perhaps in such an enlightened society the bum would receive substantial care and help from the society for free, which would transform the bum into a society contributing "soft sector" worker who receives basic income.

 

In the end, I guess people are happy if i) they have basic needs fulfilled, ii) do not need to struggle, iii) are safe, and iv) they can contribute in some meaningful manner (they have a place in the world.)

 

If we get endless renewable energy, we can recycle resources effectively and robots/machines can churn out complex stuff at very low cost... do we need money anymore? This would of course require most people to realize that (once critical basic needs are fulfilled) items do not intrinsically generate lasting happiness: and we could get off the materialistic treadmill.

[Anderson]

Somehow though Switzerland voted in a referendum against universal basic income.

Speaking of wisdom from the people... Direct democracy right there. For what it's worth.

 

Some Nordic countries though want to add it. We shall see how it works I guess. Should keep everyone happy, but at what cost?

Edited June 12, 2017 by Anderson

[Spooks]

Can we attach a poll to this topic on whether forum members consider themselves a genetically superior/inferior class?

Four options:

1) I am G-superiour

2) I am G-inferior

3) Don't know/haven't decided

4) There is no such thing.

 

5) Ain't nothin' but a G thang, baby

[CarltonTroisi]

I think it will not be possible to increase the IQ solely by changing genetics. The development of the brain is very complex and, ironically, right now especially the "elite" is dumbing down their own children by excessive use of electronics.

I'm in agreeance with this, and I'm a bright fellow. I definitely don't think IQ is fixed. I believe "nurture" is just as important as "nature."

[jaxa]

I'm in agreeance with this, and I'm a bright fellow. I definitely don't think IQ is fixed. I believe "nurture" is just as important as "nature."

 

Are you really in agreement with Destined, or are you in agreement with me? I said that genetics influences IQ and that altering a number of genes could have a modest effect on intelligence, maybe 5-10 IQ points up or down. So if you believe that nurture is as important as nature, then you believe that genetic nature does play a role in determining intelligence.

 

Read this.

 

It's not that you can go to a genetic engineer and order up a child with a guaranteed 200 point IQ. Instead, there are a number of suspected genes that have been sequenced that have been found to be common in intelligent people. These genes can influence the development of brain tissue, among other effects. Copying the optimal versions into a designer baby could result in the child having a nearly insurmountable head start over other children. Combine this with the fact that children of wealthy parents are more likely to receive better nurture in the form of early schooling or tutoring, a healthy diet, a more stable home life, etc., and you can start to see how questions of genetic inequality would arise. With enough money, both nature and nurture can be optimized, greatly increasing the probability of producing a talented genius/prodigy. These children are in turn more likely to reach new heights of success, and may be inheriting a fortune from their parents. By the time they use genetic engineering to make their own children smarter and more attractive, 30 years or so will have passed, allowing for huge advances in our understanding of the human genome and brain development. So each generation could become more optimized than the last.

 

If designing your children remains a high cost or becomes a legally risky procedure (forcing you to go overseas to a favorable jurisdiction, such as China), then only the rich will be able to take advantage of these scientific advances. That could create lead to the creation of Outlooker's genetic class, in which even the elites with the worst nurturing will tend to end up with abnormally high IQs and subjective beauty.

 

Already, China, the UK and others are amassing genomic data to a degree that would have been utterly impossible 20 years ago. They can get a lot more if they really want to. These days we are hearing about big data genetics studies focused on increasing longevity or intelligence. But it won't be too long before someone gets the bright idea of sequencing the genomes of models, celebrities, beauty pageant contestants, and the like. Attractiveness aside, people who are taller are known to have greater success in life.

 

Ethical questions have been raised over designer babies and the simpler approach of embryo screening (to eliminate the possibility of certain genetic diseases and pick simple traits). But when it comes to parents, some will see it as a worthwhile and downright cheap and obvious investment in the livelihood of their children. I guarantee there are millionaires and billionaires out there following these trends as closely as I am and getting ready to lay down six figures or more in order to create a "perfect" child. While they may have the capacity to love any child, why roll the dice? They can raise and love a "perfect" child instead.

Edited June 13, 2017 by jaxa

[Anderson]

Being tall means being predisposed to a range of illnesses that stretch from that too - potentially weaker bones, higher chance of getting problems with the spine, possible higher pressure on that heart. The standard is 1.71 m.

[jaxa]

Being tall means being predisposed to a range of illnesses that stretch from that too - potentially weaker bones, higher chance of getting problems with the spine, possible higher pressure on that heart. The standard is 1.71 m.

 

I'm glad you brought those up. I was thinking of an outlier, gigantism, a bit but did not consider those effects. Those problems may be worth it. Heart problems should be fixable with anti-aging / life extension / regenerative medicine technologies, which will all be more accessible to the rich. If those technologies aren't forthcoming, then they can be addressed in part by being able to afford quality health care (insert point about the rich yet again).

 

Our species' genetic "requirements" have changed over time. During prehistory, being physically weak would be a death sentence. Having a poor metabolism or being smart yet physically weak could also be a huge disadvantage. But today, the upper, middle, and even lower classes are awash in cheap calories and most of the world enjoys peace (or at least, the ratio of court jesters to knights is much higher).

 

If a genetic analysis finds an optimal height that is tall but not too tall, then a certain number could become the target. Additionally, genes could be introduced in order to reinforce bone density and offset negative effects of height. You also have the nurture side of the equation since physical activity strengthens the bones that you use (Wolff's law).

[Destined]

 

Are you really in agreement with Destined, or are you in agreement with me? I said that genetics influences IQ and that altering a number of genes could have a modest effect on intelligence, maybe 5-10 IQ points up or down. So if you believe that nurture is as important as nature, then you believe that genetic nature does play a role in determining intelligence.

Maybe I did not make my point clear, but I meant that nurture is as important as (if not more important than) genetic predisposition. And that many parents right now try to nurture their children by stimulating logical thinking etc but neglect the physical education, that is just as important, not only for general health and well being, but also for brain development.

[jaxa]

Maybe I did not make my point clear, but I meant that nurture is as important as (if not more important than) genetic predisposition. And that many parents right now try to nurture their children by stimulating logical thinking etc but neglect the physical education, that is just as important, not only for general health and well being, but also for brain development.

 

Good nurture has been attainable for a long time. Maybe we have somewhat improved nutrition (such as iodized salt and folic acid fortification) and education (which you might argue against because of smartphones and tablets) than in the past. But nurture is dependent on the knowledge and motivation of the parents as well as resources. Someone could have been nurtured about as well in 1917 as today. By contrast, editing your child's genes is a very new development and could have major effects regardless of the environment a child grows in (environments and life experiences can vary dramatically and aren't fixed from birth).

 

If you acknowledge that richer families typically (not always) offer better nurture than poorer families (better nutrition, earlier and better education, greater access to knowledge, living further away from toxic waste sites), then you can see how gene editing can take an existing gap and widen it further. The rich already have better nurture outcomes, now they can have much better nature outcomes.

Edited June 13, 2017 by jaxa

[stumpy]

in the past physically weak and higher intelligence would have you being the religious part of early man, or medicine man, or making stone tools, or religious art. Well if you survived childhood then there would be other things you could offer your tribe, they wouldn't all go out and hunt.