lepukowsky

Because I live in a western liberal democracy and have been indoctrinated to believe that differences between cultures have no qualitative bearing, they are merely choices among equal values, and as such I cannot possibly comprehend such blatant facts.

Please tell me you knew I was being sarcastic...

I'm not talking about genes. I'm talking about the passing of culture, values, etc... It seems pretty obvious to me that good habits produce more good habits, and bad habits produce more bad habits among family lineage, but no one seems even willing to admit that!

No, I'm not going to let you misinterpret my argument, keep trying. I'm quoting the article which is suggesting that people breed with the best mate they can, inevitably creating inequality. I am asking how we, as a modern society, reconcile this with the goal of equality. It's really a simple question, do you personally think the nature of mate-choosing could lead to inequality over time? Because I do, and I don't think we have any duty as a society to "regulate" how we choose mates to further the goal of equality. That is not to say I am against all attempts an promoting equality, but this specifically is a line in the sand for me (both aesthetically and morally) and I am curious how others feel. The article is practically aghast that such a facet of our nature could cause inequality (among all the other innumerable mutations we incur) and I find it laughable. If you read The Republic by Plato the section on the Kalipolis does a great job of demonstrating why an attempt at perfect equality is so ridiculous: Imagine what would happen to meritocracy if we didn't value with whom we mated and perhaps you will finally get it.

Edit-It's a question of cultural inequality, not genetic, in my mind.

I at no point advocated eugenics and I actually find that a bit insulting. I quoted the article directly which stated (as I quote again for the space-cadets among us):

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability."

I simply alluded to (and then later asked) my respondent to what extent he or she is willing to defend equality over an individual's rights. Please do not misrepresent my words. Maybe you should try staying on topic before pointing me to some far-off, yet to be encountered political dilemma? I also pointed out that despite our modern acceptance of evolution, the “enlightened” liberal-democratic west is in absolute cognitive dissonance when it comes to reconciling such theories with the various inequalities that arise between peoples. Perhaps you can enlighten us all with your futuristic wizardry? I'm betting not...

The first comment on the actual article (Econmist) page is thus:

"I suspect that looking at incomes (or genes) rather misses the root of social mobility or lack of it. I think the more major difference is simply cultural."

Maybe you should give credit where credit is due? Perhaps you are being sarcastic but it seems like everyone in your family has noble professions, at least by my standards...

That makes no sense. How could one group possibly slowly evolve over a great period of time to be any different than anyone else?

According to Wikipedia, that question doesn't really matter: "race has no taxonomic significance and that all living humans belong to the same species" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29

I suppose if some group of people got themselves into their own species, where they could not in fact mate with what we know as "human", it would be a pretty big deal.

Edit-- I quoted the same line... please feel free to respond to my comment below.

Do you feel this way from a societal, "consequentialist" point of view, meaning that doing such would necessarily maximize the quality of society on the whole? If so, what if there is an opportunity cost by which such a moral choice stimies your next cancer cure or breakthrough in clean energy?

Or perhaps, instead, do you feel that the overall effect on society is not as important as the individual's "right" to maximize his or her own opportunity? And if so, what about some other individual's right to choose the best available mate?

Or is there a third way?

Thank you for the response.

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability."

I think this raises a very important question: How far are we willing to go to pursue equality in the modern age? It seems that -- generally -- there is an inevitable tendency of humans to mate with someone of similar "stature" or "capacity". Of course, like any generalization, there are exceptions, but it certainly seems that we each possess a certain amount of "personal capital" which determines our worthiness as a mate. Can we really prevent the good from mating with the good, and the bad from getting stuck with the bad, generally? Is that even a goal worth pursuing? Such presumption seems to be in conflict with nature itself.

It's almost amusing how the modern era is so committed to the science of evolution and yet works so hard to derationalize it!