Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Can you elaborate more on DNA and what kinds of people have better DNA?
Do you think DNA plays no role in talents, IE in the capacity to generate resources, contribute to the well being of yourself, your family, the society you live in?
IQ is inheritable and more and more important for income (and income is a decent proxy of your contributions to society).
But it's not IQ only, everything useful in life is inheritable, every behavioral propensity is.
From favoring long term considerations to short term ones ("marshmallow test") to propensity to sacrifice for goals to willpower in general defined as the capacity of doing what you think is right for you even if your emotional pulsions would make you behave otherwise.
Propensity to take risk is inheritable, extroversion is inheritable and so on.
Political attitude is inheritable as well.
What constitutes a better DNA can change depending on circumstances (some talents that made people very good farmers aren't necessarily going to be particularly useful in post industrial societies), but some talents are broadly useful in most contexts (IQ and willpower for ex), as well as good (physical and mental) health conditions, which, try to guess, are broadly inheritable as well, although this is in particular is less relevant today than in the past.
If person A has 130 IQ , no weak organ, no chronic inheritable disease, no inheritable mental illness (bipolarismo, schizofrenia), he is taller than average as a man, more beautiful (again all inheritable traits) he is going to have a much much much easier life (= ->> more opportunities!) than someone lacking all or part of that.
In order to get the IQ 82, ugly short bipolar man to the same level of opportunity you need violence to the order of something like 80-90% marginal income tax for the IQ 130 family (redistributed to the IQ 82 family), and probably need to keep the IQ 130 guy in a dark room in solitary as a kid for years to try to reach an equal level.
If you let both live normally by the age of 6, even if family/environment was otherwise equal, their differences would be so stark, so gigantic in every possible measurable variable you could care about that no future "redistributive justice" could ever solver them.
We have 2 incredible historical examples, Italian surnames of rich people in Florence in the Renaissance correlating to present day income of people with the same surname , and China where the children and grandchildren of the intellectual and business elite wiped out during the cultural revolution, tortured, killed, deprived of all property, still have outcomes far better than the average chinese person.