

The Industrial Revolution due to a change in the English population? - rms
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html/?ex=1187409600&en=e007fbc0160d2ca1&ei=5070

======
jsnx
This is blasphemous! The rich are genetically superior to the poor...

The idea that behaviours run in families is not unreasonable, but I don't see
why the author looks to genetics for that mechanism.

~~~
danteembermage
<http://paulgraham.com/say.html> perhaps?

~~~
jsnx
Are you implying that my reaction to genetic determinism is just a result of
my uncritical acceptance of liberal, academic mores?

Personally, I think racism is more socially acceptable than most of us would
like to admit. I've met people who left research in biotech because the
ubermensch mentality was so pervasive there.

There is little evidence that social behaviours are transmitted genetically --
but you need only examine the history of Buddhist monasticism to realize that
social behaviours can be transmitted, with extreme uniformity, in the absence
of consanguinity. Why do people fall back on genetic determinism? It has a lot
to do, I think, with logical positivism -- something that is very attractive
to academics of every persuasion, except those close enough to its roots
(physicists) to understand its limitations.

~~~
rms
I am strongly in favor of genetically engineering myself and my children.
Improving ourselves using biology is inevitable. Is this the ubermensch
mentality you're referring to?

~~~
jsnx
No, that's not the ubermensch mentality -- I'm talking about folks who think
they've found the ubermensch. (Usually, the ubermensch is white.)

