stupidity needs to be cured

[VV o n g B a]

hahaha, man... this guy's awesome. i agree w/ him to a point too.

---------------------------
Stupidity should be cured, says DNA discoverer


18:13 28 February 03
Shaoni Bhattacharya


Fifty years to the day from the discovery of the structure of DNA, one of its co-discoverers has caused a storm by suggesting that stupidity is a genetic disease that should be cured.

On 28 February 1953 biologists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA - the chemical code for all life. The breakthrough revealed how genetic information is passed from one generation to the next and revolutionised biology and medicine.

But in a documentary series to be screened in the UK on Channel 4, Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder and that molecular biologists have a duty to devise gene therapies or screening tests to tackle stupidity.

"If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease," says Watson, now president of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, New York. "The lower 10 per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent."

Watson, no stranger to controversy, also suggests that genes influencing beauty could also be engineered. "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."


full story (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993451)

[teaz0r]

Stupidity should be cured

along with arrogance and inability to make jokes.

[kangal]

Originally posted by pipSy@Feb 28 2003, 02:44 PM

along with arrogance and inability to make jokes.
hmm.....sounds like someone i know

[ChinaLama]

Please refrain from even oblique personal attacks. :)


What if everyone can be genetically engineered to be smart and hard working? where would social inequalities come from and would they be justified? On the one hand, I think it might be good cuz we'd reduce the pool of advantages that are arbitrary. on the other hand, from a selfish viewpoint, i like some of my arbitrary advantages. :unsure:

[M3Kamikaze]

Stupid is just a word that describes something, just like the word beauty. What may be beautiful to someone else is ugly to another, and what is ugly to all hell is beautiful to someone else. So, to being called stupid by someone else, doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid. That article is a bit humorous, but the guy is a complete moron. Of course, he might not be a moron to someone else. Doh!!

[AznYam]

athat'd be cool. we'd be like gattaca

[teaz0r]

gattaca! atcg atcg! it's the new language i tell ya!

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by M3Kamikaze@Feb 28 2003, 09:23 PM
Stupid is just a word that describes something, just like the word beauty. What may be beautiful to someone else is ugly to another, and what is ugly to all hell is beautiful to someone else. So, to being called stupid by someone else, doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid. That article is a bit humorous, but the guy is a complete moron. Of course, he might not be a moron to someone else. Doh!!
well, beyond a certain point, ppl are stupid. if u are born w/ downs syndrome, u end up with less intelligence than other ppl. no ifs, ands, or buts.

and the guy is the friggin co-discoverer of dna. he's no moron. he just likes to push buttons.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by M3Kamikaze@Feb 28 2003, 10:23 PM
Stupid is just a word that describes something, just like the word beauty. What may be beautiful to someone else is ugly to another, and what is ugly to all hell is beautiful to someone else. So, to being called stupid by someone else, doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid. That article is a bit humorous, but the guy is a complete moron. Of course, he might not be a moron to someone else. Doh!!
i disagree. stupid is not just a word. for some, it's a life-style.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 1 2003, 05:55 AM
well, beyond a certain point, ppl are stupid. if u are born w/ downs syndrome, u end up with less intelligence than other ppl. no ifs, ands, or buts.

and the guy is the friggin co-discoverer of dna. he's no moron. he just likes to push buttons.
yeah i agree w/ the Turtle here. Or should i call him 8 kings? which do you prefer, wongba?

ok...n/m that slight digression. But, yeah, it's not ALL subjective-- to a certain extent, in a culture, we can agree on who's stupid and not. And it's not just a matter of intellectual ability, but also of common sense. So if someone crosses the boundaries of common sense, we can rightfully say he's stupid. Whether or not that's genetic is another question.

[M3Kamikaze]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Feb 28 2003, 11:55 PM
well, beyond a certain point, ppl are stupid. if u are born w/ downs syndrome, u end up with less intelligence than other ppl. no ifs, ands, or buts.

and the guy is the friggin co-discoverer of dna. he's no moron. he just likes to push buttons.
I didn't have people with downs syndrome on my mind at that time, but if you were the parent of a child with downs syndrome, would you call your kid stupid? Less intelligence doesn't mean you are stupid. About the moron thing, it was merely another example. That guy isn't a moron, my example and your disagreement merely added to the emphasis of the point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Mar 1 2003, 12:37 AM
i disagree. stupid is not just a word. for some, it's a life-style.
Perhaps you can expand on that 1-liner to further express your views. I'm sure we would all like to hear about it.
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Mar 1 2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 1 2003, 05:55 AM
....well, beyond a certain point, ppl are stupid. if u are born w/ downs syndrome, u end up with less intelligence than other ppl. no ifs, ands, or buts.
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Mar 1 2003, 12:41 AM

......But, yeah, it's not ALL subjective-- to a certain extent, in a culture, we can agree on who's stupid and not.
I don't believe we can all agree on who's stupid, the degree of stupidity, and who isn't stupid. Just like the beauty-ugly comparison, we all will have our own opinions on who is stupid and who isn't. We might be able to agree on 1 certain act that was really stupid, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the person is overall stupid. In my opinion, everyone has been stupid at least once in their lifetime, but that doesn't mean that we are all stupid from just 1 instance.
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Mar 1 2003, 12:41 AM

And it's not just a matter of intellectual ability, but also of common sense. So if someone crosses the boundaries of common sense, we can rightfully say he's stupid. Whether or not that's genetic is another question.
Common sense is a big factor. I don't think we can "rightfully say he's stupid" if "someone crosses the boundaries of common sense." In that situation, it'd be more non-stupid to stay that the certain someone lacks some common sense.

I'll have another serving please.

[tapestrybabe]

i dunno...
i feel kinda sensitive on this issue... cuz i dont consider myself that smart... cuz like i have trouble retaining information... i'm an extra slow reader... and i dont take tests that well... i know there are a helluva lot more intelligent ppl than me...

and its because i have less intelligence than a lot of others... it makes me feel that those who are more intelligent than me... they kinda have more value than me or something...

so like, if everyone had equal intelligence... how valueable.. would intelligence be seen than.. cuz you dont have anything to compare it with to measure its worth... you know what i'm saying...

[M3Kamikaze]

Originally posted by tapestrybabe@Mar 1 2003, 05:05 AM
.....so like, if everyone had equal intelligence... how valueable.. would intelligence be seen than.. cuz you dont have anything to compare it with to measure its worth... you know what i'm saying...
Intelligence, stupidity, knowledge, and experience are all completely different things. I agree; if everyone had equal intelligence, this world would be pretty boring. If no one was "stupid", we would never learn from other peoples' mistakes.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by M3Kamikaze@Mar 1 2003, 05:17 AM
Intelligence, stupidity, knowledge, and experience are all completely different things. I agree; if everyone had equal intelligence, this world would be pretty boring.
look, i see where u're coming from... everything is subjective (which i don't agree w/ but i see your point). actually tho, i think that if u ask most parents of kids w/ genetic disorders, whether it be down's or cleft lip... what they would do if they could go back in time w/ the proper technology to do something about their baby, that they would want to go back and do something about it. and if fact, parents w/ kids who have a cleft lip generally get doctors to pull the lip together to make their child more beautiful. its not that they didn't think their child was already beautiful, its just that they knew in their heart that their kid didn't fit a standard definition of beauty. the emotional response is different than the intellectual response. there have been studies (shown on discovery channel) that ppl commonly thought to be very beautiful often have similar facial features and are symmetric. of course some will disagree, but for the vast majority of ppl, there will be a point where a person is considered beautiful.

i know some deaf parents don't want their deaf children to get medical treatment to let them hear b/c they would be losing someone to the culture of the hearing, but i think that would be supremely selfish. some of these disorders should really transcend culture b/c they keep their child from living a life where all its possibilities are open to them.

If no one was "stupid", we would never learn from other peoples' mistakes.
we could keep a few really dumb ppl around as pets or something... :D j/k. thats a good point. i'm not saying that everybody should be super smart, just that ppl that are massively disadvantaged by their condition when compared to the population norm should be offered help.

[M3Kamikaze]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 1 2003, 10:34 AM
look, i see where u're coming from... everything is subjective (which i don't agree w/ but i see your point).  actually tho, i think that if u ask most parents of kids w/ genetic disorders, whether it be down's or cleft lip... what they would do if they could go back in time w/ the proper technology to do something about their baby, that they would want to go back and do something about it.  and if fact, parents w/ kids who have a cleft lip generally get doctors to pull the lip together to make their child more beautiful.  its not that they didn't think their child was already beautiful, its just that they knew in their heart that their kid didn't fit a standard definition of beauty.  the emotional response is different than the intellectual response.  there have been studies (shown on discovery channel) that ppl commonly thought to be very beautiful often have similar facial features and are symmetric.  of course some will disagree, but for the vast majority of ppl, there will be a point where a person is considered beautiful.
I agree to some extent. I'm not going to delve into this further, because we're straying from the topic of this thread.
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 1 2003, 10:34 AM
i know some deaf parents don't want their deaf children to get medical treatment to let them hear b/c they would be losing someone to the culture of the hearing, but i think that would be supremely selfish.  some of these disorders should really transcend culture b/c they keep their child from living a life where all its possibilities are open to them.
Ah, a topic that I know about without doing research. My best friend's brother is deaf, and I used to work for MCI as a TDD/TTY relay operator. Like you stated, that is true. There are parents like that. There are also deaf adults that woudn't want to hear if treatment were available, because they would lose the bonds they have with their deaf culture. They would lose a lifestyle and such. I agree that in some circumstances, some parents might be selfish, but most are not. They are looking out for the best interests of their children. This subject is also jumping into another topic, so that's all I'm going to say about that.
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Mar 1 2003, 10:34 AM

we could keep a few really dumb ppl around as pets or something...  :D   j/k.  thats a good point.  i'm not saying that everybody should be super smart, just that ppl that are massively disadvantaged by their condition when compared to the population norm should be offered help.
Oh and they will be offered help. Just not in the U.S. Sorry if I didn't expand on those topics, but I don't think they really belong in this thread. If you started a new thread, I'd gladly take the opposing side, even if I agree with you...lol.

[tapestrybabe]

i use to work in a group home... and i worked with adults with developmental disabilities... ppl with down syndrome and what not... and yeah, its not something that i would wish on my own child... but sometimes... i wouldnt downplay their stupidity...

i mean, there was this one client... yeah, she had that retarded look to her... and she may had not been close to a genious... but her interest was really focused onto sports... baseball especially... and more specifically into the mets... and she could name every player from past to present... on that team... their batting average and stats and stuff like that.. it was all really kinda intriguing...

[Napoleon Chynamite]

If stupidity didn't exist, then there'd be nobody around to look smart. Society needs losers in order to have winners.

[Azn Retribution]

Stupidity or ignorance.. there's a difference

and its not always genetics.
try environment.

also werd to the dude above :D

[TongBouHwu]

On 28 February 1953 biologists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA ...
and the guy is the friggin co-discoverer of dna. he's no moron. he just likes to push buttons.
Well, technically this is not true. The basic idea of the DNA double helix is from Rosalind Franklin. She pretty much did all of the work and gathering data while Watson and Crick stole her info. So he is not a moron just a thief.
Dont believe me check out the link.
Rosalind Franklin (http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Rosalind_Franklin.html)

More quote from Mr. Watson himself
"Let's just start with the Pauling thing. There's a myth which is, you know, that Francis and I basically stole the structure from the people at King's. I was shown Rosalind Franklin's x-ray photograph and, Whooo! that was a helix, and a month later we had the structure, and Wilkins should never have shown me the thing.
I didn't go into the drawer and steal it, it was shown to me, and I was told the dimensions, a repeat of 34 angstroms, so, you know, I knew roughtly what it meant and, uh, but it was that the Franklin photograph was the key event. It was, psychologically, it mobilised us..."
James Watson, Center for Genomic Research Inauguration, Harvard. September 30, 1999.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by TongBouHwu@Mar 4 2003, 01:16 AM
On 28 February 1953 biologists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA ...
and the guy is the friggin co-discoverer of dna. he's no moron. he just likes to push buttons.
Well, technically this is not true. The basic idea of the DNA double helix is from Rosalind Franklin. She pretty much did all of the work and gathering data while Watson and Crick stole her info. So he is not a moron just a thief.
Dont believe me check out the link.
Rosalind Franklin (http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Rosalind_Franklin.html)

More quote from Mr. Watson himself
"Let's just start with the Pauling thing. There's a myth which is, you know, that Francis and I basically stole the structure from the people at King's. I was shown Rosalind Franklin's x-ray photograph and, Whooo! that was a helix, and a month later we had the structure, and Wilkins should never have shown me the thing.
I didn't go into the drawer and steal it, it was shown to me, and I was told the dimensions, a repeat of 34 angstroms, so, you know, I knew roughtly what it meant and, uh, but it was that the Franklin photograph was the key event. It was, psychologically, it mobilised us..."
James Watson, Center for Genomic Research Inauguration, Harvard. September 30, 1999.

ya, i know about franklin. but while i do think she got robbed, she herself did not come up w/ the structure of dna. she only gathered the info.