Time-scales

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "panamabob"
> Yes some day we will be able to screen embryo for optimum gene,,,
but the
> question is, what is "optimum".
>
> Having "tall" genes may make me a better qualified basketball
player than a
> small person, strictly because it may be easier for me to dunk the
ball in
> the basket and slap out someone elses shot.... but does it make me
WANT to
> play basketball? ENJOY playing basketball?
> ...
> I don't think we have gotten to the point were we really understand
enough
> to make these kind of culling decisions.

I couldn't agree more...when it comes to breeding for highly specific
traits, especially physical ones (your tallnes is example is BANG on
point!) or subjective ones (f'rinstance, breeding for "creativity" at
our present state of knowledge -- and quite possibly at all future
states -- would surely be nothin' but an exercise in frustration).

"The g factor," however -- general intelligence -- is a very broad
trait that underlies Human potential in almost every area of
endeavor. Higher intelligence, in its very simplest sense, means
having more "juice" to devote to WHATEVER one attempts.

In a sociopolitical environment where being smarter than your average
bear is either admired or taken for granted -- rather than demonized
as it is today -- I just can't see a downside, and I've been
earnestly endeavoring to find one for the entire two decades I've
been pondering and researching the eugenics-for-IQ concept. If you
can see one, PLEASE bring it up and let's discuss it!

Thanks for your thoughtful input -- spike