"Noting the dramatic decrease in the cost of fully mapping individuals' genomes, the report suggests that some traits relevant to war-fighting "are likely to have a strong genetic component, for which better understanding may lead to improved military capabilities."
How does this relate to intelligence testing and selective breeding issues from history?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/genetic-soldiers-advisory_n_808907.html
This relates to intelligence testing and selective breeding in the sense that we are picking out people that have good genes in certain aspects of military actions. The pentagon wants to find people with similar genes that would help a person survive or be able to function better in military action. They maybe want to create an army filled with intelligent soldiers who can think fast and know what to do at any moment in combat. However, genes are not all that determines a person's intelligence, that is why I feel that they need to not just look at the genes of a person. Experience has a big influence on genes and especially the environment can help to turn on some genes, while leaving other genes shut off. So I feel that military needs to focus on both experiences and genes and not just look for those "good genes" that they want in their soldiers.
I agree with Jackie's points on this subject. Sure, genetics and basic instincts a particular person might have would be beneficial to finding or creating the 'perfect soldier'. However, the environment in which a person is raised has a big impact on who they become as a person.
Also, to me this kind of sounds like the government trying to gain more control than they might need. Of course we need strong people to protect our country, but just because a person has a certain genetic code doesn't mean they should be sought out and tested by the government.
This is somewhat ridiculous I think. Of course the government wants strong, intelligent soldiers to fight for America, but it's also a choice for these soldiers, and I even though it would be helpful to find soldiers with "strong genetics" who have military capabilities, it doesn't seem quite right to me. This reminds me of the movie "Gattaca" and how in the future, only the people with strong genetics and components were able to get higher class jobs, and the ones who had bad genes and were "weaker" had lower class jobs such as being a janitor. Now a days, scientists are finding ways to mix and match genes/eggs to clone, breed and whatnot and it's becoming a little out of control. And I do agree with Jackie, experience does have a lot to do with the way one is. The government needs to stop worrying about how to make our soldiers perfect by looking at their genes and by tests, and start training them for the real world.
I think this is a terrible idea. Free will is always an issue here, and obviously there are going to be big problems with forcing people to do things without giving them a choice.
Obviously, these people who think it may be a good idea are only looking at one side of the idea. Sure a lot of our traits and intelligence can be linked to our genes, BUT a lot of it is also based on our environment and how we are trained.
In the end I don't think these "genetic soldiers" would end up being a whole lot better, or more intelligent than somebody else who's received intensive training to do the exact same things.
I have to agree with Laura in that this doesn't feel right. I think that if we just look at genes in people and only pick out those that have certain genes makes me worry ab bit about who will make up the army now. What if those people that have these certain genes don't have the strong will and emotions to handle such a life as the army life. Most men and women who enter the army know that its going to be rough and usually feel that they have the skills and mental ability to do it. I feel that if we only select the people that have certain genes, these people could be "weak" in a way and not up for such a challenge as the army.
This sounds pretty risky. The military would be able to use this in some ways for the good of the soldiers but this could easily become exploited. I do not think we can just link genes to the things we do or everything would be about nature. There is obviously a nurture side to things, so just because one person has a certain gene, does not mean they will have the specific characteristic to go along with that. It's scary to think that the government may try to someday make everyone to be perfect humans. This is really far off but it could be an outcome of this and then there would be no diversity among people that helps to give everyone his or her own identity. I think the bad far outweighs the good in this situation.
This is article relates to intelligence and selective breeding because the government wishes to be able to find specific genes that are heritable and be able to track that in individuals to see whom is best suited for battle. I can understand why they are doing this but I also believe the the environment combined with these factors play equal roles in human development of traits. So this leaves me to wonder if the single out certain genetics that they find desirable are they going to be willing to try and control the environment that the individual grows in for the sake of them creating a perfect soldier. This is not so far off from the idea of creating designer babies. Sure in some instances it maybe useful if a family has a highly destructive inheritable disease but I think otherwise messing with genetics just for the creation of what they view perfect is wrong.
Well this is related to the history of mental testing because originaly Robert Yerkes was put in charge of psychological testing of WWI soldiers. He had two tests, Army Alpha for literate soldiers and Army Beta for illiterate soldiers. These tests were never used because by the time they were done the war was over. However Yerkes as well as Goddard and Terman believed that mental capacity was inherited, that environment had little effect and that intelligence tests could measure this capability. This kind of thinking later led to Eugenics, which was a horrible theory that people should selectively be able to reproduce. This was the foundation for the thoughts behind Adolf Hitler and WWII. I think that this kind of thing should be avoided altogether, because in theory it would be great to be able to select who reproduces, or who is in the army, and we would get exactly what we want but too often thoughts like this lead to horrible things like WWII.
This sounds like the beginning of eugenics in the history of psychology. Goddard used Binet's intelligence tests in America to only allow the "best and brightest" into America. This is similar to what the military is trying to do. It's also reminiscent of Yerkes' military intelligence testing although Yerkes had good intentions to assign soldiers where they would be the most fit.