[2Wycked]

Gattaca is, by far, my favorite movie. It was released in 1997 to critical acclaim but little commercial success. Ethan Hawke was the lead, with Jude Law & Uma Thurmas as two important supporting characters. It quite possibly is one the most beautiful films I have ever had the privilege of watching. The characters, the acting & the music are hauntingly mesmerizing.

The movie opens with a society that has been reorganized around liberal eugenics. Society is based on genetic determinism in the sense that your genetic sequence will determine your place in society. The young Ethan Hawk, named Vincent, was born via simple sex. His younger brother, Anton, was born via genetic enhancement. Vincent was weak from a young age and Anton was clearly & assuredly guaranteed success. The two brothers would play a game called “Chicken” in which they would swim as far as they could out into the ocean, the first one to give up lost. One day, Vincent actually beat his brother – and this moment made Vincent’s life possible.

Vincent left his family and became a “borrowed ladder” in the sense he falsely assumed the identity of a genetic superior in order to achieve his dreams. Jude Law, named Jerome Morrow, was a genetic superior who was crippled by his own hand. His genetically-fueled narcissism was dashed when he got a silver at an Olympic diving competition. Unable to come to grips with his second-class finish, he threw himself in front a moving vehicle.

Vincent takes on the life of Jerome and enrolls in Gattaca, an academy based on space travel. It has been Vincent’s dream to be an astronaut, a life he was denied via his genetics. Clearly, this is his desire to flee world that denies the real abilities of its people. The drama of the movie unfolds beside this arc of Vincent’s life, but understand a homicide investigation threatens the outing of Vincent. In this time, he meets & seduces Uma Thurman, named Irene in the movie.

It so happens the lead investigator is Vincent’s long lost brother, Anton. When Anton figures out Vincent is his brother, he confronts him telling him he has exceeded his biological rank. Vincent challenges him to a final game of “Chicken;” if Vincent fails, then Anton can out him. It is emotionally charged and Vincent wins outright. Anton asks him how he achieved any of his success. Vincent replies saying, “He never saved anything for the swim back.”

Vincent arrives on the day of his launch in space, about to fulfill his dreams. Jerome had just committed suicide, as he is unable to reconcile the reality of life with what is was promised to be, while Vincent is confronted with a final obstacle – a final urine test to determine genetic identify. Vincent had no urine of Jerome on hand and thinks he is finished. The urine tester, a long-time friend, reveals he knew Vincent was faking his identify all along. The tester fakes his genetic profile, saying Vincent has a flight to catch.

Vincent is seen, at the end, in the spaceship opening the parting gift Jerome gave him. It is simply a lock of Jerome’s hair. A tearful Vincent looks up at the stars and remarks,

Quote:

For a man not meant for this world, I must confess I am having a tough time leaving it. They say every atom of our bodies was once a part of the stars. Maybe I am not leaving, maybe I am going home.

As beautiful as this movie is, it has so many ways to dissect it. I could talk about transhumanism, the allegory of genetic discrimination to view racism, the future of society as science advances, etc.

What I want to discuss is the character of Vincent and how he overcomes the most impossible of odds.

In many ways, Vincent represents the red-pill man. He rejects the social script handed to him by society and instead seeks to define his own reality. He has to come to grips with the reality of society and how it oppresses him. Instead of playing the victim card, he took his life into his own hands and pressed forward as hard as he could.

When playing "Chicken" with his more privileged brother, he knew the only way he could win is to be more reckless, to be more aggressive. Often times in modern society we see privileged folk - often white women - whine about aggressive men. What they don't understand is that many people - often men - have to ruthlessly press forward if they want to succeed. Society gives them no advantages and their ace in their pocket is they often have nothing to lose, so they bet it all on pressing forward with no regards to their own ability balance that.

When Vincent talks about "saving nothing for the swim back," he is talking about the genetic privilege afforded to Anton in the sense Anton can hedge his life in a way Vincent cannot because Anton can always fall back on his genetic privilege.

The day of his launch, we see a telling exchange between Vincent & Jerome. Jerome tells Vincent to not thank him because Jerome just lent Vincent his body, but Vincent lent Jerome his dream.

What is seen here is the correct idea that all the privilege in the world will not result in anything if you do not have the fire to make it happen. Jerome was born into supreme privilege from all aspects; the narcissism that developed from that upbringing lead to his self-inflicted crippling. Vincent's own dis-privilege lit a fire under him that resulted him in achieving his wildest dreams.



The idea that humanity can be reorganized along biological lines is foolish. It doesn't matter all that much if society is constituted of the genetically firm, what matters is if they have a desire to use that privilege appropriately.

Jerome knew he was superior to the rest of society, so he treated them as such. His crippling - ushering him into that inferior class society - was completely unbearable for him. So, he sold his genetics to a man who could & did use them to his benefit. In that act, Jerome lived out his perceived birthright through Vincent.

As for Vincent, he showed how supremely important willpower is to a person's success. We see this with female comedians - they refuse to take criticism from viewers and appreciate the supportive comments from female viewers. In that situation, she does not grow. With male comedians, we see criticism from both men & women. If they choose to learn from it, they grow.

They can take the Jerome route & ignore it or they can take the Vincent route & internalize it and become a better man because of it.

Willpower is what defines a man from a boy. I will openly acknowledge our society does not cultivate this trait in boys, but it is central to a boy's development into a man.

Success in life is never assured. You could put in the hours every day, put in the effort & dedicate your life to one cause but you may never matter as much as you think you should. What matters isn't your success, but your desire to be that man. What matters is that you are/were the man you always saw yourself to be.

If that means ripping down social structures, like in "Gattaca," then more power to you. Stand them down. Face them with every last fiber of your being. Stop at nothing.

However, you have to be 100% committed. The weak perish here. There is no room for 50% or 95% committed. You have to put all your chips in in order to qualify here. Anton's can & will change the world, but if you want to cash in on your willpower, you have to be willing to risk it all. Even Anton's have to draw on more than privilege.

Nothing great was ever achieved without the rolling of the dice. You can bet it all - your money, status, intelligence, etc. - but, at the end of the day, it still is a crap-shoot.

You have to commit to whatever your end goal is. You must recognize you might fail. However, you also have to recognize that in your effort, you aren't just becoming a man, but have become one.

With stated goals that are based on what you want out of life, you have formally recognized your autonomy as a man & started out on a path to become the best man you can be. That, in & of itself, is more than the vast majority of man can claim.

Do you think the vast majority of men could be Vincent? The man pissed all over by society, only to use this willpower & unrecognized strength to achieve the heights of human achievement. To a man like Vincent, his work is never done. He goes to sleep thinking of his next move, only to wake thinking of the one after that. He doesn't get days off, he gets days to think about days that matter.



Vincent, to me, is an inspiration. While Ethan Hawke's acting plays a big role, Vincent is one of the few real characters I have seen in a movie in my life. He is honest when confronted about his real identity when Irene badgers him - despite all the bullshit in his life about his genetics, he still is honest with a woman that loves him.

Vincent, in many ways, is a man that belongs in past times as he thinks modern society values truth. A common theme in the movie is the use of old-school vehicles/architecture to reinforce temporal issues. Anyway, Vincent realizes that modern society values fake observations based on social expectations.

He represents a dying breed of male based on his own seizure of his life, rather than suborning his life to authority figures who will decide his masculinity for him. Vincent, to them, is little more than an annoying fly in the ointment that needs to get washed out.

"Gattaca" is my favorite movie of all time. I always watch it when I feel my confidence flagging. It is beautifully acted, the musical score is amazing & the plot is incredible. It truly is a movie you cannot look away from.

Someday, I may go home as well. . .

[Tex Pro]

I also liked Gattaca a lot. It is my favorite sci-fi movie.

The interesting part is that the "genetically engineered" future that is depicted in Gattaca may not be that far away.

China is currently experimenting with genetic engineering and in a few decades could be well on its way to implementing a eugenic program similar to the one depicted in Gattaca:

http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-o...ng-program

[Arado]

I love this movie too. The problem is, though, is that the movie is scientifically wrong. Genetics matters, a lot. China will eventually embrace genetic engineering and will demonstrate the absurdity of our blank slate ideology.

Anyway, plenty of people like to spout PC garbage about genetics not mattering and that anyone can get ahead. I would like to see what they would do if they needed a sperm donor for their kids - pay 20$ to a homeless guy or lowlife for their spunk or thousands to a clinic to ensure that they get the genes of an athletic ivy leaguer?

Like we say about women, pay attention to their actions, not what they say they want.

[Beyond Borders]

Have never seen it - awesome breakdown. Going to go hunt it down.

[Menace]

The title is spelled entirely with letters that represent the genetic code, I.e DNA base pairs (G, T, A, C).

[Nemencine]

With all due respect, the movie is SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT. Yes, genetics matters, but so is your willpower...or your environment...or nurture...or drive..or...whatever you want to call it...It is called EPIGENETICS.

In fact, within certain deviations, your willpower matters more than your genetics. Very easy to prove: go to tier 1, world class scientific publications like "Nature" or "science" and do a subject search for "epigenetics"....or just search pubmed site and look for "EPIGENETICS".

There are actual, molecular biological data backing this up. Data that were ascertained through null mutations, loss-of-function mutations, weak-loss-of-function mutations, site-directed mutagenesis, nucleotide substitution models, subcellular fractionation, subcloning, western blotting, northern blotting, southern blotting, histones acetylation analysis, etcetera, etcetera... Basically, your environment(willpower or parenting or nurturing, etc) strongly determines the expression levels of your genomic codes. It regulates/spikes it beyond the expected genetic limit.

This is one of the hottest areas of molecular biochemistry research right now because it shatters darwinian thesis.

EPIGENETICS completely subverts the Darwinian model and backs up Lamarckian model of genetics. The fact is that, your genes does matter, however, even more important than that, is the DECISION by you to force/stress your genes to act beyond its prescribed genetic limits. This is the denominator that plays a HUMONGOUS role in any organism's life.

In one of the many countless studies, they mutate rats to create dumb rats with low neural uptakes, lower levels of certain neurotransmitters, etc...basically a rat with low IQ....and then make them compete against normal smart rats in maze/puzzle tests....the dumb rats losts 100%.

They then creates stimulating learning environment for the dumb rats and push and push them....eventually, the dumb rates starts performing close to the smart rats....the F1 generation of the dumb rats performed AT THE LEVEL of the smart rats F1 generation. The F2 generations were also neck to neck without sustained stimulating learning aid. They've inherited the new genetic expression levels from their parents. Despite the fact that the F1 and F2 generation of dumb rats still have the stupid genes.

The genes of the dumb rats has forced itself to start producing higher levels of neurotransmitters to match intellectual challenge fostered on them(bypassing its genetic limits through the sheer force of the environment.)

Dissecting the brains of the dumb rats...they found out that their brains has somehow manage to produce neurotransmitters and regulate neural uptake to match that of the smart rats. Despite the fact that they still have the inherited stupid genes.

of course, there are limits to how far you can push past your genetic inheritance. However, what they see here is an unforeseen plasticity to genes interactions and expressions. Genetics is not necessarily destiny.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS?

Sure, blank statists are wrong...but thinking your genetics determines everything about you is absurd in the face of scientific evidence...unless you can disprove epigenetics....the truth is inbetween. Enriching social programs will help the "underpriviledged"...however, if the underpriviledged DOES NOT HAVE THE INTEREST/WILLPOWER...all the social engineering will not make a single fucking difference. Nada. Zilch.

I can see how this will upset those obsessed with their white IQ scores.

All the genetic gifts in the world means nothing without the will to execute.

All the social engineering in the world means nothing without the will to execute.

It is that simple. WILL TO POWER. It is.

This also goes to some of the threads about nature vs nurture...talent vs hardwork...etc....right now, you cannot change your genetics...all you can do is how hard you are willing to work towards your goal...what you can do is to "not leave anything for the swim back".

Go all in. And may fortune favours the bold.

(07-08-2013 05:47 AM)ao85 Wrote:  

I love this movie too. The problem is, though, is that the movie is scientifically wrong. Genetics matters, a lot. China will eventually embrace genetic engineering and will demonstrate the absurdity of our blank slate ideology.

Anyway, plenty of people like to spout PC garbage about genetics not mattering and that anyone can get ahead. I would like to see what they would do if they needed a sperm donor for their kids - pay 20$ to a homeless guy or lowlife for their spunk or thousands to a clinic to ensure that they get the genes of an athletic ivy leaguer?

Like we say about women, pay attention to their actions, not what they say they want.

[Vaun]

(07-08-2013 05:24 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

The interesting part is that the "genetically engineered" future that is depicted in Gattaca may not be that far away.

China is currently experimenting with genetic engineering and in a few decades could be well on its way to implementing a eugenic program similar to the one depicted in Gattaca:

http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-o...ng-program

It comes and goes throughout history. The Eugenics movement resulted in the horrors of WW2 and subsequently went underground - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

[Arado]

(07-08-2013 11:25 AM)Nemencine Wrote:  

With all due respect, the movie is SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT. Yes, genetics matters, but so is your willpower...or your environment...or nurture...or drive..or...whatever you want to call it...It is called EPIGENETICS.

In fact, within certain deviations, your willpower matters more than your genetics. Very easy to prove: go to tier 1, world class scientific publications like "Nature" or "science" and do a subject search for "epigenetics"....or just search pubmed site and look for "EPIGENETICS".

There are actual, molecular biological data backing this up. Data that were ascertained through null mutations, loss-of-function mutations, weak-loss-of-function mutations, site-directed mutagenesis, nucleotide substitution models, subcellular fractionation, subcloning, western blotting, northern blotting, southern blotting, histones acetylation analysis, etcetera, etcetera... Basically, your environment(willpower or parenting or nurturing, etc) strongly determines the expression levels of your genomic codes. It regulates/spikes it beyond the expected genetic limit.

This is one of the hottest areas of molecular biochemistry research right now because it shatters darwinian thesis.

EPIGENETICS completely subverts the Darwinian model and backs up Lamarckian model of genetics. The fact is that, your genes does matter, however, even more important than that, is the DECISION by you to force/stress your genes to act beyond its prescribed genetic limits. This is the denominator that plays a HUMONGOUS role in any organism's life.

In one of the many countless studies, they mutate rats to create dumb rats with low neural uptakes, lower levels of certain neurotransmitters, etc...basically a rat with low IQ....and then make them compete against normal smart rats in maze/puzzle tests....the dumb rats losts 100%.

They then creates stimulating learning environment for the dumb rats and push and push them....eventually, the dumb rates starts performing close to the smart rats....the F1 generation of the dumb rats performed AT THE LEVEL of the smart rats F1 generation. The F2 generations were also neck to neck without sustained stimulating learning aid. They've inherited the new genetic expression levels from their parents. Despite the fact that the F1 and F2 generation of dumb rats still have the stupid genes.

The genes of the dumb rats has forced itself to start producing higher levels of neurotransmitters to match intellectual challenge fostered on them(bypassing its genetic limits through the sheer force of the environment.)

Dissecting the brains of the dumb rats...they found out that their brains has somehow manage to produce neurotransmitters and regulate neural uptake to match that of the smart rats. Despite the fact that they still have the inherited stupid genes.

of course, there are limits to how far you can push past your genetic inheritance. However, what they see here is an unforeseen plasticity to genes interactions and expressions. Genetics is not necessarily destiny.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS?

Sure, blank statists are wrong...but thinking your genetics determines everything about you is absurd in the face of scientific evidence...unless you can disprove epigenetics....the truth is inbetween. Enriching social programs will help the "underpriviledged"...however, if the underpriviledged DOES NOT HAVE THE INTEREST/WILLPOWER...all the social engineering will not make a single fucking difference. Nada. Zilch.

I can see how this will upset those obsessed with their white IQ scores.

All the genetic gifts in the world means nothing without the will to execute.

All the social engineering in the world means nothing without the will to execute.

It is that simple. WILL TO POWER. It is.

This also goes to some of the threads about nature vs nurture...talent vs hardwork...etc....right now, you cannot change your genetics...all you can do is how hard you are willing to work towards your goal...what you can do is to "not leave anything for the swim back".

Go all in. And may fortune favours the bold.

I never said Genetics determines everything about you - this forum is testament to:
1) the importance of self improvement and game in attaining women
2) the detrimental effects of the modern ENVIRONMENT in making women less attractive

that said, genetics places a limit on what characteristics can manifest given the ideal environmental and social conditions. I'll have to read up on the experiment on rats, but I don't expect them to start doing calculus anytime soon, no matter how much stimulation they are given.

[Icarus]

Can't willpower have a genetic component to it, as well?

[tairos]

So a guy with a congenital heart deficiency manages to sneak into the astronaut corps by "not saving anything for the return trip" (IE exhibiting no future orientation). How inspiring. What's an in-mission heart attack and subsequent Challenger-esque disaster next to the sustainment of people's delusions of equality and control?

[void]

As a matter of fact, the evolutionary pressure and thus the selection is so low at the level of comfort we have at this moment in history, I think little genetical progress will be made. As we achieve new heights in technology, even more comfort and less pressure will exist. I think we will hit a plateau as a species.
To advance, we would have to create such a evolutionary pressure by social engineering like in Gattaca and thus we would be forced to modify ourselves to the max.

[placer]

Gattaca in some ways is already real. Angelina Jolie's decision to remove her breasts was a decision she made because of her genetic code.

[Nemencine]

(07-08-2013 03:06 PM)tairos Wrote:  

So a guy with a congenital heart deficiency manages to sneak into the astronaut corps by "not saving anything for the return trip" (IE exhibiting no future orientation). How inspiring. What's an in-mission heart attack and subsequent Challenger-esque disaster next to the sustainment of people's delusions of equality and control?

This is frustrating. How can you miss the point of the movie? It is so obvious:

You have a strong gain-of-function mutation in your heart causing Apolipoprotein-B to be over-expressed: significantly increasing your chances for vascular disease. That is your genetic lottery. It is not fair, but that is your genetic lottery: you will die at a very young age from heart disease. Your fate is settled.

The point of the movie is this: are there epigenetic alterations that can be done to you that will weaken the high expression of Apolipoprotein-B so that you dont develop heart disease and die at age 24? Are there epigenetics modifications that will bypass or cheat your darwinian heritage? Something that will let you live till age 80?

You, on the other hand, are yapping on about equality this or equality that; and challenger explosion in the name of feminism.

If drugs that target genes has to target gene expression. The more we better understand them, and how they override or control genetic limits; the more we are able to develop better drugs/treatment to give people a better life despite their genetic limits.

I dont know about you, but i certainly wont want a 1st class brainy scientist dying at the age of 23 because of genetic defects in his liver; all because we refuse to study epigenetics just not to offend people that are rabidly anti-blank statists.

This is what i take from the movie. Not some simple minded statement about challenger explosion because we dont want to offend equalists.

Are feminists and blant-statists going to try and co-opt epigenetics and twist it around to justify their world view? of course, they will! For heaven's sake the bible was co-opted to justify whatever the empire want. why wont the same thing happen to science?

[iknowexactly]

(07-08-2013 04:44 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

The movie opens with a society that has been reorganized around liberal eugenics. Society is based on genetic determinism in the sense that your genetic sequence will determine your place in society.

I love this movie too and appreciate your analytical posts, but your use of "liberal" here completely baffles me. Maybe you explain how you use it.

The period of the Enlightenment coincided with the rejection of the "divine right of kings" and a notable landmark along the way was the United States declaration of independence which has the phrase :
"All men are created equal.... with certain inalienable rights. "

This seems the diametrical opposite of "determinism" as you put it. A modern form of aristocracy, or caste system is what you are describing.

The Enlightenment and liberalism disagreed that aristocracy deserved special privileged treatment-- of course this has not been achieved, but liberalism argues for everyone's right to pursue happiness, not a pre-selected few. For who selects the selectors if not a new aristocracy?

So how does genetic "tracking" by others at birth coincide with what was the quintessential definition of liberalism: that rules come from agreement among equals, because there is no one higher to pass them down to us. Some people are inevitably pissed off about some of the rules, and they are free to leave that particular social collective (i.e. the USA) if they don't like them ( except for the IRS haha, they claim to own you forever more or less...)

I think a better word for what you mean might be "totalitarian" , or "aristocratic", where people inherit things instead of earning them.

[iknowexactly]

It's always good to bring up Jimi Hendrix's mother was a sadly dysfunctional drunk who didn't want to give birth to Jimi. Luckily for music there was no mandatory sterilization eugenics program.

[Nemencine]

(07-08-2013 03:00 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

Can't willpower have a genetic component to it, as well?

Now, this is what i call an intelligent question.

As of right now, scientists dont know. At first, everybody thought the job will done when the human genome project was completed. they were sooo wrong.!

If anybody here studies molecular biology, you will see just how incredibly baffling the ways genes interact and cross-talk to each other. It is vastly complex subject. In fact, scientists believes they havent even begin to scratch the surface.

It is not as simple as gene "A" code for protein "A"...protein "A" does this or that...therefore mutate gene "A" and problem solved. No. Biochemical pathways are fiendishly convoluted and complex.

Below is an example of a biochemiscal pathway....

[Nemencine]

(07-08-2013 05:00 PM)Nemencine Wrote:  

......Below is an example of a biochemical pathway....

[Icarus]

(07-08-2013 04:59 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

It's always good to bring up Jimi Hendrix's mother was a sadly dysfunctional drunk who didn't want to give birth to Jimi. Luckily for music there was no mandatory sterilization eugenics program.

Cherry picking is a fallacy. And eugenics does not rely on sterilization only. Positive eugenics would consist, for example, of tax incentives for the best specimens to breed more, thus ensuring that the human capital of a society appreciates over time.

If one could have a society where everyone is highly intelligent, gorgeous, and mentally stable, I don't know what we're waiting for. That would be the closest one could get to true equality, since everyone would be dealt a similar hand in the genetic lottery.

[Tex Pro]

(07-08-2013 04:51 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 04:44 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

The movie opens with a society that has been reorganized around liberal eugenics. Society is based on genetic determinism in the sense that your genetic sequence will determine your place in society.

I love this movie too and appreciate your analytical posts, but your use of "liberal" here completely baffles me. Maybe you explain how you use it.

The period of the Enlightenment coincided with the rejection of the "divine right of kings" and a notable landmark along the way was the United States declaration of independence which has the phrase :
"All men are created equal.... with certain inalienable rights. "

This seems the diametrical opposite of "determinism" as you put it. A modern form of aristocracy, or caste system is what you are describing.

The Enlightenment and liberalism disagreed that aristocracy deserved special privileged treatment-- of course this has not been achieved, but liberalism argues for everyone's right to pursue happiness, not a pre-selected few. For who selects the selectors if not a new aristocracy?

So how does genetic "tracking" by others at birth coincide with what was the quintessential definition of liberalism: that rules come from agreement among equals, because there is no one higher to pass them down to us. Some people are inevitably pissed off about some of the rules, and they are free to leave that particular social collective (i.e. the USA) if they don't like them ( except for the IRS haha, they claim to own you forever more or less...)

I think a better word for what you mean might be "totalitarian" , or "aristocratic", where people inherit things instead of earning them.

When 2Wycked used the word liberal, he meant liberally applied. Not liberal in the political sense.

You liberals are too sensitive

[Nemencine]

@iknowexactly
@icarus

To be honest. My gut feeling is that we will never fully understand how genes work. I know that is a strong statement. It is not uncommon for a genome to pick up other genes extract from other organisms and include it. Mitchondria came about this way.

there are over 10 million SNPs(single nucleotide polymorphism). the number of permutations and cross interactions is immense..how about the "introns"....

Let us not forget about the jumping genes...yes, you are reading that correctly, some genes will simply JUMP from one location to another. This is like removing the whole of city or a town(NYC) from the groundup, and implanting in another country(japan) or within another city in another country(barcelona spain) and then returning it back.

Or sometimes, taking half of LA and meshing it with half of moscow and not miss a beat.

Then there is the genetic fat tails...random, errant behaviours...when genes suddenly start behaving differently from the way they've been acting for god-knows-what.....to me this the beauty of evolution. It creates diversity and makes things sooo interesting.

Who knows? maybe it is a good thing jimi hendrix wasnt aborted?

Scientists should never fall for the arrogance of thinking we've solved everything and therefore we can start creating perfect babies... Every single time in scientific history that has always proven false. We know soo little.

That is why i suspect the real truth is between blank-statists and gene-is-destiny crowd. It is not one or the other.

We are simply too marvelous a creation of biology.

(07-08-2013 05:06 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 04:59 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

It's always good to bring up Jimi Hendrix's mother was a sadly dysfunctional drunk who didn't want to give birth to Jimi. Luckily for music there was no mandatory sterilization eugenics program.

Cherry picking is a fallacy. And eugenics does not rely on sterilization only. Positive eugenics would consist, for example, of tax incentives for the best specimens to breed more, thus ensuring that the human capital of a society appreciates over time.

If one could have a society where everyone is highly intelligent, gorgeous, and mentally stable, I don't know what we're waiting for. That would be the closest one could get to true equality, since everyone would be dealt a similar hand in the genetic lottery.

[Kabal]

Nemencine,

No exposition on epigenetics, willpower, and/or the complexity of gene interactions can change the empirical observation that genetics (by genetics I mean narrow-sense heritability) explains at least about 50% of the variation in intelligence in Western nations, thus leaving <= 50% of R^2 for everything else.

Life is probabilistic, not deterministic. A "bad" genetic roll can be overcome, but empirically people with bad rolls will not fare as well as those with better ones.

There are Mugsy Bogues and Nate Robinsons out there, but your chances of making it to the NBA are cut down dramatically being ~5'9" vis a vis ~7'0".

On a population level this is arguably even more insidious, given the (even roughly) normal distribution--a population just a few IQ points dumber or a few inches shorter than another will produce a fraction of the geniuses or giants.

Traits like willpower, impulse control, and ability to delay gratification (which, like IQ, are likely all heritable--the question is the extent) are not negatively correlated with or even orthogonal to intelligence, but rather positively correlated--so in a given population, genetic IQ disparities between people will only be magnified by those traits, not mitigated.

Like ao85 pointed out, this board is largely focused on self-improvement, so clearly the chances of any posters here being genetic determinists are very slim. But nonetheless, genetics are still very important, as previously mentioned.

I only skimmed this thread and your posts, but my sense is that you would agree with the gist of the above, as you said: "That is why i suspect the real truth is between blank-statists and gene-is-destiny crowd. It is not one or the other."

However, there may be a material amount of readers here who are part of the clueless blank slatist crowd, so I am writing to address them--lest they think you were writing to say "heritability/genetics doesn't matter," which is not your position--but someone looking to confirm their blank slatist priors may misconstrue it as such.

[Therapsid]

This whole genetic determinist, HBD trend is becoming stale. It's a breath of fresh air, at first. But gradually, if you keep obsessing over it, you begin slipping into a morass of egotism. A lot of it is just preaching to the choir. There's always going to be at least a few blank slatists, if only for the reason that there will always be exceptional individuals who buck the odds. Such individuals then become passionate spokesmen against genetic determinism, despite the fact that they are in a sense aberrations.

Frankly, some of the people - *not* on this forum, but elsewhere in the manosphere (read: Heartiste) - who constantly talk about this issue are tiresome misanthropes. They're hanging their hats on their supposed genetic pedigree in lieu of actually accomplishing anything of note in life.

When somebody like James Watson today or William Shockley in recent memory have things to say about human biodiversity and genetic determinism, I listen. When its a bunch of bitter guys on the Internet bemoaning the decline of civilization while doing precisely nothing about it except expressing their virulent hatred on online message boards, I tune out.

Having said all that, politics aside, Gattaca's a good movie and this was an interesting post.

[tairos]

I'm not overly concerned with validating myself in the eyes of lesser people by "accomplishing something." What does that even mean? Usually nothing of lasting value. Typically, that's going to mean making money, accruing fame for some meaningless shush and jive routine or, more rarely, feeding a bunch of Third World peasants or something. The greatest achievement one can effect in my estimation is the uplift of the (human) race, which it to say, continuing or reestablishing the upward trajectory of its genetic pedigree. So, I see more of value in the idle cognitive elite than a highly motivated mediocrity spinning ever faster its gerbil wheel.

[JimNortonFan]

Old fashioned eugenics brought back:

http://cironline.org/reports/female-inma...roval-4917

[Samseau]

(07-08-2013 05:24 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

I also liked Gattaca a lot. It is my favorite sci-fi movie.

The interesting part is that the "genetically engineered" future that is depicted in Gattaca may not be that far away.

China is currently experimenting with genetic engineering and in a few decades could be well on its way to implementing a eugenic program similar to the one depicted in Gattaca:

http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-o...ng-program

I'm predicting that this Chinese eugenics program will be a massive failure.

A huge flaw of most eugenicists is that they focus on human evolution in terms of individual selection, when in fact it is far far far more likely that humans evolved via group selection.

Thus the reason people aren't hyper smart and super good-looking is because it probably wouldn't be good for the species. Through hundreds of thousands of years, our specie has determined that it's best to have fewer smart people, fewer beautiful people, etc, and I'm sure it must have occurred for a very good reason.

Once the Chinese start messing around with the DNA of their own race, they're probably going to find a whole host of unintended consequences that will end up being their undoing.