Measles: Debunked theory, er, stupidity is not an excuse.

[Playball40]

Perhaps the solution is to make those parents liable for all medical expenses for any child at their school who gets measles.

And those that die from it? How much in liability is that worth?

- - - Updated - - -

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

But can't others avoid the danger by getting the vaccine?

Not everyone

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Quite possibly dangerous nonsense.....yet there we have it, as shown in the given examples, qualified people expressing that view. It's not something that I would argue, just a matter of interest.

But none of those "bad" genes are actually bad. If they reduced survival chances in previous environments but don't do so in today's environment, then the human condition doesn't deteriorate at all if they propagate more in this environment.

As I said, it's not something I'm arguing for, just a matter of interest in the claims being made by some Biologists.....interest not being the same thing as 'novelty,' as bilby said.

My position is currently neutral.

One of the more extreme claims coming from Michael Lynch, apparently a leading geneticist;

''So it is surprising to read a recent warning by a leading geneticist who says that the human gene pool may be in trouble. Writing in a major genetics journal, Indiana University biologist Michael Lynch makes an argument that sounds much like the claims of eugenicists a century ago: Because modern medicine has become so effective at helping people survive and have children, it has reduced the ability of natural selection to remove harmful mutations from the human population. If nothing changes, we can expect a “genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition” over the coming generations.''

''As Lynch points out, however, natural selection isn’t just ancient history — it also plays an important, ongoing role in the maintenance of our genes. Genes are not stable things: New mutations inevitably arise in each generation — each of us is born, on average, with scores of new mutations. Most are harmless, but some of them do damage. Without natural selection acting to remove these mutations from the gene pool, they will accumulate over generations and gradually erode our species’ genes, leading to a deterioration in our physical and mental traits.''

And it's a bullshit claim, as evidenced by such statements as "genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition over the coming generations". There is no such thing as a genetic deterioration except as it pertains to a reduction in our ability to survive long enough in our environment to be able to pass our genes on to our offspring. If we do get smaller and weaker as a species, that has no on bearing on genetic fitness if we live in an environment where physical strength isn't as critical to survival as it used to be. If our senses dull and we wouldn't be able to survive as well out on a savannah with predators stalking us, that's irrelevant to our genetic fitness if we live indoors and have animal control officers to shoo away any predators who get within a few miles of us.

The exact same claims could have been made when we started moving from a hunter gather society to an agrarian one. While the average hunter gatherer was stronger and faster than the average farmer, he wasn't stronger and faster than ten average farmers, so the "genetically fitter" hunter gatherers all died off because the farmers' ability to support larger populations and have "weaker" members survive and prosper instead of die off as children was a more viable evolutionary strategy.

It's the same in our society. Our ability to support a larger range of genetics than in the past is a positive, not a negative because it gives us a broader base for our society and the aspects which get diminished or eliminated aren't aspects that we have a real need of anymore.

My point is that you shouldn't have a neutral position on the issue because the arguments on one side of the issue are actually really fucking dumb, so neutrality isn't warranted.

 

[DBT]

My point is that you shouldn't have a neutral position on the issue because the arguments on one side of the issue are actually really fucking dumb, so neutrality isn't warranted.

The reason why I am neutral is twofold. Firstly, I know that environment does have an effect on Gene expression (epigenetics), for example, generations following the Irish potato famine are more prone to cardiovascular disease.

Or generations that live in hunger may cause an epidemic of Diabetes in subsequent generations.

For example;

How Famines Make Future Generations Fat
“If you want to maintain your power, the best way is to keep the people hungry,” Keuky said.

The scars of this famine can still be seen today, especially in Keuky’s diabetes clinics. Keuky believes that this famine has etched itself into the DNA of the Cambodians conceived and born during this time, leaving them profoundly vulnerable to obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes.''

So it is obvious that whatever we happen to do, which is a part of our environment, can have a profound effect on gene expression.


Secondly, As I do not happen to know what the long term effects of our actions may be, just that change due to environmental conditions (including our our own activities) is inevitable, I cannot dismiss the possibility of negative outcomes. And of course it is quite possibility that things will go well enough, nothing that can't be addressed.

I am looking at the big picture. The overall picture, not just this or that element in isolation.

Hence neutrality.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, if environmental conditions change, the determination of what counts as genetically fit will change as well. What does that blatantly obvious point have to do with anything? Saying that what counts as fit in our environment won’t count as fit in different environments and therefore we are genetically deficient is like saying that because fish will die if a lake dries up, therefore the fish who are living in the lake are genetically deficient. That’s not what the term means.

 

[DBT]

Yes, if environmental conditions change, the determination of what counts as genetically fit will change as well. What does that blatantly obvious point have to do with anything? Saying that what counts as fit in our environment won’t count as fit in different environments and therefore we are genetically deficient is like saying that because fish will die if a lake dries up, therefore the fish who are living in the lake are genetically deficient. That’s not what the term means.

But I have given examples of the actual consequences of actual events. People actually suffering from the decisions of policy makers. It happens. People have suffered as a result of decisions being made. The mechanisms are there. The policy makers, epigenetics.....


I'm not saying that will happen, only that it can happen. It is possible. There is no 100% guarantee of a trouble free future.

 

[DBT]

Here is the abstract by Lynch on the issue.


Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load.

Lynch M1.
Author information
Abstract

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species. What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself. The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention. Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits.

A review of the article:

A Weakened Gene Pool Why Humanity’s DNA May be in Trouble in the Future

''We are all living longer than our ancestors because of better healthcare, sanitation and so on. This is obviously a good thing for each of us as individuals. But the effects on the DNA of humankind may not be so wonderful.

A new review in GENETICS explains this potential problem pretty well. It has to do with DNA changes or mutations that pop up in each generation. And the loss of the ability to weed out the ones with minor, negative effects.

Over time, these minor mutations might build up and have serious consequences. Left unchecked, our DNA might decline in quality, generation after generation.

Now that isn’t to say that this article says that DNA quality is only going to go downhill. With screening and maybe even fixing broken genes (gene editing), we may eventually lose really bad mutations from the gene pool. So future generations may not get as many deadly genetic diseases as we do today.

But it is the mutations that just cause minor problems that are, well, potentially the problem. We will not be able to easily find and screen for these. And combined they may have real consequences for humanity.

The idea is that these mutations with small effects will keep building up in our DNA because they are not deadly in the modern world. Eventually enough mutations will build up to weaken the human genetic pool. Death by a thousand cuts…

We may see increases in autism and other brain related issues, get cancer earlier and so on. We will be more sickly in general.''

 

[bilby]

Here is the abstract by Lynch on the issue.


Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load.

Lynch M1.
Author information
Abstract

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species. What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself. The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention. Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits.

A review of the article:

A Weakened Gene Pool Why Humanity’s DNA May be in Trouble in the Future

''We are all living longer than our ancestors because of better healthcare, sanitation and so on. This is obviously a good thing for each of us as individuals. But the effects on the DNA of humankind may not be so wonderful.

A new review in GENETICS explains this potential problem pretty well. It has to do with DNA changes or mutations that pop up in each generation. And the loss of the ability to weed out the ones with minor, negative effects.

Over time, these minor mutations might build up and have serious consequences. Left unchecked, our DNA might decline in quality, generation after generation.

Now that isn’t to say that this article says that DNA quality is only going to go downhill. With screening and maybe even fixing broken genes (gene editing), we may eventually lose really bad mutations from the gene pool. So future generations may not get as many deadly genetic diseases as we do today.

But it is the mutations that just cause minor problems that are, well, potentially the problem. We will not be able to easily find and screen for these. And combined they may have real consequences for humanity.

The idea is that these mutations with small effects will keep building up in our DNA because they are not deadly in the modern world. Eventually enough mutations will build up to weaken the human genetic pool. Death by a thousand cuts…

We may see increases in autism and other brain related issues, get cancer earlier and so on. We will be more sickly in general.''

Yeah, he's still wrong.

The human genome needs to be fit for whatever future environments we might encounter. As we cannot know the future, the best we can do is to have a gene pool that is a) fit for the current environment; and b) as diverse as possible.

He is arguing that because the gene pool contains many individuals whose fitness in some past environment would have been doubtful, it is therefore not fit for the (unknown) future environment. This is blatant nonsense.

His thesis holds water ONLY if we assume that our environment is likely to revert to a past state. But as I have already pointed out, even if that did happen - if humans suddenly found themselves living a medieval or even earlier lifestyle - genetic unfitness would be the least of our worries.

The human population has ALWAYS included 'sickly' individuals, people with cancer, and so on. This is no longer as big a problem for those individuals, or for the population as a whole, as it once was. That's a GOOD thing.

Evolution doesn't care about individuals. It also doesn't need cheerleaders for not caring about individuals. Individuals can say 'fuck you' to evolution, via the use of technology, and that's something that we should be encouraging.

This guy's argument is an appeal to nature fallacy writ large. It's a stupid and illogical position to take - which has never stopped an idea from becoming popular in the past, and probably can't now. But let's not pretend that it's popular because it is reasonable. It's not reasonable. It's fucking dumb - and I have shown it to be dumb, and why it is dumb. And repeating it yet again does not in any way make it less dumb.

 

[DBT]

His thesis holds water ONLY if we assume that our environment is likely to revert to a past state.

Whether valid or not, his thesis appears to be related to mutation rate and its possible effect on future conditions - specifically ''the loss of the ability to weed out the ones with minor, negative effects.''

And ''over time, these minor mutations might build up and have serious consequences. Left unchecked, our DNA might decline in quality, generation after generation.''

Which is not to say that this is going to happen. Or that it is likely to happen. Only that this form of decline is within the realm of possibility.

Being within the realm of possibility, the issue should not be summarily dismissed.

That's all.

 

[bilby]

His thesis holds water ONLY if we assume that our environment is likely to revert to a past state.

Whether valid or not, his thesis appears to be related to mutation rate and its possible effect on future conditions - specifically ''the loss of the ability to weed out the ones with minor, negative effects.''

No such loss has (or even could) occur. By definition, a negative genetic effect is incapable of being passed on. If it's passed on, then in that environment it's not negative. By definition.

And ''over time, these minor mutations might build up and have serious consequences. Left unchecked, our DNA might decline in quality, generation after generation.''

That's simply not possible. Unless by 'decline in quality' he means something OTHER than 'decline in genetic fitness'; And if he does, then all he is saying is that his OPINION about what is or is not desirable is somehow meant to be important. And if so, he's wrong. And desperately lacking in humility.

Which is not to say that this is going to happen. Or that it is likely to happen. Only that this form of decline is within the realm of possibility.

Well it isn't.

Being within the realm of possibility, the issue should not be summarily dismissed.

That's all.

Being outside the realm of possibility, it should be dismissed, rather than used to puff up this opinionated arsehole's ego.

 

[DBT]

I don't think the issue is that clear cut. Negative mutations can be passed on even if the effects are negative if they are a part of broader function.

For example:
Mutations contribute to genetic variation within species. Mutations can also be inherited, particularly if they have a positive effect. For example, the disorder sickle cell anaemia is caused by a mutation in the gene that instructs the building of a protein called hemoglobin. This causes the red blood cells to become an abnormal, rigid, sickle shape. However, in African populations, having this mutation also protects against malaria.

However, mutation can also disrupt normal gene activity and cause diseases, like cancer. Cancer is the most common human genetic disease; it is caused by mutations occurring in a number of growth-controlling genes. Sometimes faulty, cancer-causing genes can exist from birth, increasing a person’s chance of getting cancer.''

 

[bilby]

I don't think the issue is that clear cut.

Yes it is.

Negative mutations can be passed on even if the effects are negative if they are a part of broader function.

Then they are not negative mutations; They are mutations whose negative effects you are concentrating on because it suits your preferred narrative.

For example:
Mutations contribute to genetic variation within species. Mutations can also be inherited, particularly if they have a positive effect. For example, the disorder sickle cell anaemia is caused by a mutation in the gene that instructs the building of a protein called hemoglobin. This causes the red blood cells to become an abnormal, rigid, sickle shape. However, in African populations, having this mutation also protects against malaria.

So whether it is 'negative' is a function of the environment, and not a characteristic of the gene.

However, mutation can also disrupt normal gene activity and cause diseases, like cancer. Cancer is the most common human genetic disease; it is caused by mutations occurring in a number of growth-controlling genes. Sometimes faulty, cancer-causing genes can exist from birth, increasing a person’s chance of getting cancer.''

Cancer isn't a disease; It's an entire class of diseases.

And mutations that cause cancers are typically not in the germ line.

Those few that are, are expressed (or not) depending on the environment. So they are only 'negative' insofar as it suits your narrative to assume a negative environment for them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For fun and games since some are talking about UK rights to prohibit military wings as parties.

Is there a right for parents to stand in the way of everybody's health because they are just F-ing stupid. Specifically should people have rights to oppose public safety to violate another's right to secure safe educations by sending their children to school unvaccinated against disease, specifically measles. Let's be clear. The science is in. Vaccinations for measles are safe.

Here's is how The New Yorker writer Masha Gessen writes it in "Why Measles Is a Quintessential Political Issue of Our Time" https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...-a-quintessential-political-issue-of-our-time

[FONT=&]Vaccination is a basic political issue, because it is the subject of community agreement. When a high-enough percentage of community members are immunized, a disease can be effectively vanquished. In epidemiological terms, this is known as “herd immunity,” which cannot be maintained below a certain threshold. When enough people reject the community agreement, they endanger the rest. Willfully unvaccinated adults and children can spread diseases to those who cannot be vaccinated or haven’t been vaccinated, such as infants and people with a compromised immune system; these vulnerable populations would probably be safe in conditions of herd immunity. Vaccination and the refusal to vaccinate are political acts: individual decisions that affect others and the very ability of people to inhabit common spaces [/FONT]

It becomes a political issue because some shoulder sweatered crusties wear the 'right' to choose against science and public health. This is not a RR or RW issues unless one talks about 'rights'. \this is about willfully uninformed liberals, mainly, taking up kishe against those who disagree that vaccine caused their kid's ADHD.

I have an inlaw who makes a living guiding the effected children of those poor modern, generally in 'merica mainly, lost souls bellowing with their dollars and personal 'stories' to legislators who had the good sense to enact public health policy against contagious diseases. Now liberal places like marine county, Oregon, and Washington are having measles outbreaks where there had been none for decades. Now conservatives are jumping on board to broaden their fight against government overreach because of science. in places like Texas-ah.

OK.

I've had my say.

What's yours. Is there a right for citizens to endanger others by being stupid, gullible, naysayers about settled science. Do the stupid have the 'right' to enable mass extinctions?

Don't you think it's just the extension of the culture wars? Vaccine denial is the marriage of the fundies attack on teaching evolution in school and the frankenfood green hippies. Both of the groups basic attitude is a worship of everything "natural", as if nature is our friend and isn't trying to kill us all the time.

 

[DBT]

Yes it is.

Not according to the geneticists who put the proposition on the table. Could they be that foolish in their profession? So inept as to propose something that has absolutely no foundation?

I think not.

Then they are not negative mutations; They are mutations whose negative effects you are concentrating on because it suits your preferred narrative.

It doesn't 'suit my preferred narrative' because I simply put the proposition on the table. A proposition that is not my own. A proposition that is being described by people qualified in their field.

It is they who are describing the mechanisms and means by which problems may arise. Not that this is certain, only that it is possible for the reasons they themselves outline.

Cancer isn't a disease; It's an entire class of diseases.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

Those few that are, are expressed (or not) depending on the environment. So they are only 'negative' insofar as it suits your narrative to assume a negative environment for them.

Nothing is being assumed. Possibilities were put forward and example were given. Nobody has claimed that this is definitely how our future is going to be.

Another outline:

"The relaxation of selection is only one issue. It’s a debatable how much harm this problem is doing to us. Perhaps, while the population is growing rapidly, it’s not that harmful as there’s almost no selection. Everybody survives including good genotypes. Ill genotypes also survive but the population is growing. We seem not to be losing anything. But when, at some point, the population evens out, if there are those genotypes that survive accidentally, regardless of their quality, then the degeneration will become faster than during the ultra-fast population growth."


''The second issue isn’t theoretic but proved by geneticists. Quite recently, in 2016-2017, the results of a large study conducted in the USA and in Iceland were published. The research was conducted on a sample of about 20,000 people, in other words, full human genomes, in the US and on a sample of more than 100 thousand people in Iceland. This very competent and very extensive study shows that everything is much worse: harmful genetic variants are not just accumulating, they’re supported by the selection and allow people to better reproduce in the current context. What we consider bad genes, that, for example, degrade our intelligence, are spreading. They’re spreading because it turns out that in our modern age (apparently, for 100 or even 150 years) there has been a tendency that stupid people, uneducated people, reproduce better.''

 

[bilby]

Not according to the geneticists who put the proposition on the table. Could they be that foolish in their profession? So inept as to propose something that has absolutely no foundation?

I think not.


It doesn't 'suit my preferred narrative' because I simply put the proposition on the table. A proposition that is not my own. A proposition that is being described by people qualified in their field.

It is they who are describing the mechanisms and means by which problems may arise. Not that this is certain, only that it is possible for the reasons they themselves outline.

Cancer isn't a disease; It's an entire class of diseases.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

Those few that are, are expressed (or not) depending on the environment. So they are only 'negative' insofar as it suits your narrative to assume a negative environment for them.

Nothing is being assumed. Possibilities were put forward and example were given. Nobody has claimed that this is definitely how our future is going to be.

Another outline:

"The relaxation of selection is only one issue. It’s a debatable how much harm this problem is doing to us. Perhaps, while the population is growing rapidly, it’s not that harmful as there’s almost no selection. Everybody survives including good genotypes. Ill genotypes also survive but the population is growing. We seem not to be losing anything. But when, at some point, the population evens out, if there are those genotypes that survive accidentally, regardless of their quality, then the degeneration will become faster than during the ultra-fast population growth."


''The second issue isn’t theoretic but proved by geneticists. Quite recently, in 2016-2017, the results of a large study conducted in the USA and in Iceland were published. The research was conducted on a sample of about 20,000 people, in other words, full human genomes, in the US and on a sample of more than 100 thousand people in Iceland. This very competent and very extensive study shows that everything is much worse: harmful genetic variants are not just accumulating, they’re supported by the selection and allow people to better reproduce in the current context. What we consider bad genes, that, for example, degrade our intelligence, are spreading. They’re spreading because it turns out that in our modern age (apparently, for 100 or even 150 years) there has been a tendency that stupid people, uneducated people, reproduce better.''

The bolded is the definition of a beneficial gene. To call such a gene 'harmful' is to elevate opinion over the definitions inherent in the theory of evolution.

If it were true (and it's not, but that's a whole other can of worms) that stupid people were better able to survive in the present environment than smart ones, then trying to prevent stupid people from reproducing, or trying to get non-stupid people to reproduce, would lower the fitness of the species and flirt with extinction.

 

[DBT]

Not according to the geneticists who put the proposition on the table. Could they be that foolish in their profession? So inept as to propose something that has absolutely no foundation?

I think not.


It doesn't 'suit my preferred narrative' because I simply put the proposition on the table. A proposition that is not my own. A proposition that is being described by people qualified in their field.

It is they who are describing the mechanisms and means by which problems may arise. Not that this is certain, only that it is possible for the reasons they themselves outline.



Nobody suggested otherwise.



Nothing is being assumed. Possibilities were put forward and example were given. Nobody has claimed that this is definitely how our future is going to be.

Another outline:

"The relaxation of selection is only one issue. It’s a debatable how much harm this problem is doing to us. Perhaps, while the population is growing rapidly, it’s not that harmful as there’s almost no selection. Everybody survives including good genotypes. Ill genotypes also survive but the population is growing. We seem not to be losing anything. But when, at some point, the population evens out, if there are those genotypes that survive accidentally, regardless of their quality, then the degeneration will become faster than during the ultra-fast population growth."


''The second issue isn’t theoretic but proved by geneticists. Quite recently, in 2016-2017, the results of a large study conducted in the USA and in Iceland were published. The research was conducted on a sample of about 20,000 people, in other words, full human genomes, in the US and on a sample of more than 100 thousand people in Iceland. This very competent and very extensive study shows that everything is much worse: harmful genetic variants are not just accumulating, they’re supported by the selection and allow people to better reproduce in the current context. What we consider bad genes, that, for example, degrade our intelligence, are spreading. They’re spreading because it turns out that in our modern age (apparently, for 100 or even 150 years) there has been a tendency that stupid people, uneducated people, reproduce better.''

The bolded is the definition of a beneficial gene. To call such a gene 'harmful' is to elevate opinion over the definitions inherent in the theory of evolution.

If it were true (and it's not, but that's a whole other can of worms) that stupid people were better able to survive in the present environment than smart ones, then trying to prevent stupid people from reproducing, or trying to get non-stupid people to reproduce, would lower the fitness of the species and flirt with extinction.

Well, right or wrong, that is the ''result of a large study conducted in the USA and in Iceland,'' which is related to this topic; the future of the human gene pool in relation to our environment, including activity, social conventions, commercial interests or what collection of elements have an input into human behaviour with the possibility of effecting changes in gene expression (epigenetics)... or selection.

 

[bilby]

Not according to the geneticists who put the proposition on the table. Could they be that foolish in their profession? So inept as to propose something that has absolutely no foundation?

I think not.


It doesn't 'suit my preferred narrative' because I simply put the proposition on the table. A proposition that is not my own. A proposition that is being described by people qualified in their field.

It is they who are describing the mechanisms and means by which problems may arise. Not that this is certain, only that it is possible for the reasons they themselves outline.



Nobody suggested otherwise.



Nothing is being assumed. Possibilities were put forward and example were given. Nobody has claimed that this is definitely how our future is going to be.

Another outline:

"The relaxation of selection is only one issue. It’s a debatable how much harm this problem is doing to us. Perhaps, while the population is growing rapidly, it’s not that harmful as there’s almost no selection. Everybody survives including good genotypes. Ill genotypes also survive but the population is growing. We seem not to be losing anything. But when, at some point, the population evens out, if there are those genotypes that survive accidentally, regardless of their quality, then the degeneration will become faster than during the ultra-fast population growth."


''The second issue isn’t theoretic but proved by geneticists. Quite recently, in 2016-2017, the results of a large study conducted in the USA and in Iceland were published. The research was conducted on a sample of about 20,000 people, in other words, full human genomes, in the US and on a sample of more than 100 thousand people in Iceland. This very competent and very extensive study shows that everything is much worse: harmful genetic variants are not just accumulating, they’re supported by the selection and allow people to better reproduce in the current context. What we consider bad genes, that, for example, degrade our intelligence, are spreading. They’re spreading because it turns out that in our modern age (apparently, for 100 or even 150 years) there has been a tendency that stupid people, uneducated people, reproduce better.''

The bolded is the definition of a beneficial gene. To call such a gene 'harmful' is to elevate opinion over the definitions inherent in the theory of evolution.

If it were true (and it's not, but that's a whole other can of worms) that stupid people were better able to survive in the present environment than smart ones, then trying to prevent stupid people from reproducing, or trying to get non-stupid people to reproduce, would lower the fitness of the species and flirt with extinction.

Well, right or wrong, that is the ''result of a large study conducted in the USA and in Iceland,'' which is related to this topic; the future of the human gene pool in relation to our environment, including activity, social conventions, commercial interests or what collection of elements have an input into human behaviour with the possibility of effecting changes in gene expression (epigenetics)... or selection.

That's indeed the case. The study unequivocally shows that if this guy's opinion were the criterion for evolutionary success, then in this guy's opinion, we would be in trouble.

Forgive me for being monumentally unimpressed by this finding.