Do you believe in Eugenics?

[Ixtab]

Do you believe in Eugenics? If so, what sort of eugenics programme would you ideally like to see implemented?

My views:
First, a definition: The science of Eugenics is "the study of the conditions which affect the quality of children at birth;" the art (practice) of Eugenics is "the steps by which the knowledge gained from that study may be turned to practical account in the interest of children yet unborn, and ideals yet unrealised." (Francis Galton)


In my view, a successful eugenics programme can only exist under Socialism. Firstly, people with desired traits--herein called the 'elite' only for purposes of communication, although I certainly don't mean 'elite' in a hierarchical sense--will be recruited from many different social groups, although in different ratios. Now, unless the opportunity to be a member of the elite is widely distributed throughout the entire population, eugenics is doomed to failure: at any rate, the elite itself will suffer. This introduces a 'democratic' and 'socialistic' element to evolution through Eugenics. For it follows that the best society for evolutionary improvement is that society in which vertical migration is possible for all people, where the gifted are able to rise, efficiently to be recruited into the elite, and the congenitally unfit are able to sink and are prevented from reproducing in excess. This requires a kind of Egalitarianism as a precondition--not a complete Egalitarianism, but a partial one. (By the way, Karl Marx, Trotsky, H.G. Wells, Shaw, the Fabians, and many other left-wing socialists expressed support for the eugenics movement in its heyday. It has only been a controversial issue among Socialists since Adolf Hitler perverted the movement with bizarre theories and ruined it by way of association. But just as I do not dismiss Socialism because Hitler called himself a National "Socialist", in like manner I do not dismiss Eugenics simply because Hitler implemented an equally deviant form of "eugenics". Almost any social philosophy can be misused.)

[Leif]

Do you believe in Eugenics?

Hm. That's a loaded question, if I said I didn't believe in eugenics it would indicate I believed in dysgenics, which I do not. The problem inherent in any eugenics program is deciding which genes are "good" and which are "bad." Unless one declares certain non-medical traits "bad" then an active eugenics program isn't necessary as those with debilitating heredity diseases would die if not given medical treatment.

[Ixtab]

The problem inherent in any eugenics program is deciding which genes are "good" and which are "bad." Is simply not true. Eugenics does not require the identification of individual genes, no more than does breeding cows require an advanced knowledge of genetics--which specific genes are responsible for plumpness, fertility, higher milk yields, and so on. Selective breeding preceded any knowledge of genetics.
Moreover, Eugenics does not pretend that the traits which people generally desire in their offspring--such as health, intelligence, and sanity--have an objective basis as desired traits. Just as your health, your intelligence and your sanity are "ends in themselves" and require no further justification, so the health, intelligence and sanity of those as yet unborn are ends in themselves and require no justification. "Who decides which traits are desirable?" is a meaningless rhetorical question.

[Leif]

Eugenics does not require the identification of individual genes, no more than does breeding cows require an advanced knowledge of genetics--which specific genes are responsible for plumpness, fertility, higher milk yields, and so on. Selective breeding preceded any knowledge of genetics.

I don't dispute that.

Moreover, Eugenics does not pretend that the traits which people generally desire in their offspring--such as health, intelligence, and sanity--have an objective basis as desired traits. Just as your health, your intelligence and your sanity are "ends in themselves" and require no further justification, so the health, intelligence and sanity of those as yet unborn are ends in themselves and require no justification.

Er, justification? The simple fact that in having a eugenics program one must promote certain traits and remove others brings up the immediate question of which traits one must promote, regardless of whether or not these "deserve" to be promoted. Thus, how do we choose? Many people have said they are in favor of eugenics, and I'd assume forced eugenics upon large populations as well. But, how do we discriminate between traits?

I've brought up the case of Sickle Cell Anemia before. Half of all who contain the genetic code which causes Sickle Cell Anemia are merely carriers and feel no negative effects. On the contrary, they are quite immune to malaria, which is precisely why those in the tropical areas of Africa have so many carriers of this trait. On the one hand, one cannot eliminate the trait without losing a significant biological advantage. On the other hand, half of those who carry the genes with have an entirely different trait which creates lethargy and circulation problems. So, how would a Eugenics program deal with this?

"Who decides which traits are desirable?" is a meaningless rhetorical question.

An unasked question in this thread, at that...

[Sinclair]

I don't think a eugenics program could really be carried out, because there would be corruption, for instance.

[infoterror]

I believe in Eugenics, but not by government.

[Billy Score]

I believe in Eugenics, but not by government.

i believe the government be the only one to decide this. And some traits are undeniably desirable (ie no one can argue that Alzheimer's is not a positive inherited trait).

Ymir- you are not looking at the big picture- sure sickle cell anemia has its uses in a portion of Africa, but in the world as a whole, it is harmful. A black person living in the US with sickle cell anemia is not at any advantage since malaria is not nearly as common or rampant as it is in Africa or more equitorial regions.

[jcs]

I believe in Eugenics, but not by government.
Agreed. Eugenics would work best in a society in which people simply strove for excellence (and gauged excellence on a non-monetary scale).

[Ixtab]

The simple fact that in having a eugenics program one must promote certain traits and remove others brings up the immediate question of which traits one must promote, regardless of whether or not these "deserve" to be promoted.The art, or practice, of eugenics is dependent on the idea of desired traits--such traits as physical & mental health, high intelligence, and so on; feeblemindedness, mental illness, and heritable diseases are things most parents do not wish their children to suffer through.

I've brought up the case of Sickle Cell Anemia before. Half of all who contain the genetic code which causes Sickle Cell Anemia are merely carriers and feel no negative effects. On the contrary, they are quite immune to malaria, which is precisely why those in the tropical areas of Africa have so many carriers of this trait. On the one hand, one cannot eliminate the trait without losing a significant biological advantage. On the other hand, half of those who carry the genes with have an entirely different trait which creates lethargy and circulation problems. So, how would a Eugenics program deal with this?Any realistic eugenics programme wouldn't deal with genes which are known to have pleiotropic effects upon other traits resulting in undesired consequences. In fact, it would be beneficial from a eugenicist perspective (in terms of genetic hygiene) not to do so.

[Earl_Cerberus]

Do you believe in Eugenics? If so, what sort of eugenics programme would you ideally like to see implemented?

The immediate physical destruction of World jewry (to stop the crimes of Zionism, if anyone wants to know more about the negative aspects of jewry I would urge them to consult the works of Prof. Kevin MacDonald)

I would then sterilize all non-Europeans (European-Americans are counted as Europeans of course) except the Japanese (whom I consider the Aryans of the East).

I am not quite sure what I would do with the Mediterranean sub-type so I would hold of any action with them and fund future research efforts to find out if they are as racially mixed with negros as some suggest.

[Billy Score]

Agreed. Eugenics would work best in a society in which people simply strove for excellence (and gauged excellence on a non-monetary scale).
This won't happen, it is unrealistic unless people wake up and they won't. how do you propose this being done by anything OTHER than government?

[Ixtab]

This won't happen, it is unrealistic unless people wake up and they won't. how do you propose this being done by anything OTHER than government?A friend of mine, whom I shall now quote, has an interesting idea, though I disagree with it:
"privately funded organizations, through advertising campaigns, and the government ending its promotion of undesirable traits, under the banner of Egalitarianism. Every abortion is voluntary eugenics, not having two mucoviscidosis gene carrying parents breed, because the child is guaranteed to have the ailment is voluntary eugenics. The reason why poverty is a problem is because the poor keep mindlessly breeding."

[Sinclair]

Things like "voluntary eugenics" can exist, I remember reading about Jewish groups that offer free screening to prospective parents for Tay-Sachs, or something like that.

[jcs]

This won't happen, it is unrealistic unless people wake up and they won't. how do you propose this being done by anything OTHER than government?
This happened in every ancient society, caste system or not. The Greeks serve as one of the best examples; see the Illiad. As for implementation, I don't really care. All I know is that if a government official ever interferes with my life, telling me whom I can and cannot breed with, doubting my own (vastly superior) judgement, I'll start calling myself Neo-Kaczynski and working to end such totalitarianism. :p

"privately funded organizations, through advertising campaigns, and the government ending its promotion of undesirable traits, under the banner of Egalitarianism. Every abortion is voluntary eugenics, not having two mucoviscidosis gene carrying parents breed, because the child is guaranteed to have the ailment is voluntary eugenics. The reason why poverty is a problem is because the poor keep mindlessly breeding."
The only understanding of genetics necessary for voluntary eugenics to work is the comprehension of heritability. If one finds a great flaw in a potential partner--such as a genetic disease, ugliness, or low IQ--one shouldn't fuck the said flawed partner. Scientific totalitarianism in affairs of love, a necessary component of any healthy family, is probably a bad thing, too.
Were we Greek, the prospect of mating with a poor partner would be so far beneath us that we'd be incapable of loving such a flawed creature.

[Péter]

I would then sterilize all non-Europeans (European-Americans are counted as Europeans of course) except the Japanese (whom I consider the Aryans of the East).

The Japanese are Turánians, just like Hungarians, Finns, and Estonians--meaning that they are the decendents of the people originally responsible for Sumerian civilization.

Sterilizing the world won't solve any problems at home...


Note: Perhaps I will write a short essay soon to convey my thoughts on this subject.

[Péter]

Were we Greek, the prospect of mating with a poor partner would be so far beneath us that we'd be incapable of loving such a flawed creature.

Let us adopt this "Greek" tradition, then!

[I think any sensible, well-bred individual would feel no differently.]

[Billy Score]

Encouraging abortion is something that does not sit lightly. As with eugenics i think only the government should mandate an abortion (for eugenic purposes.) I am against voluntary abortions because they encourage degeneracy.

I tend to agree with vaszoly on that issue of the point of view of Greeks. I point to Lycurgan Sparta once again for their own primtiive state enforced eugenics program.

[Starr]

Yeah, it always seem the people who should be having abortions are the ones that have abortions the least. How many people choose abortion because the child is, or may be, unhealthy or disabled in some way, as opposed to how many people have an abortion because their child who is most likely healthy, would be an inconvience for them?

[Boleslaw]

Do you believe in Eugenics?

No I dont. I already expressed my basic view here that it is morals and not genetics that make a nation great. Scientists actually dont even know how much genes actually influence peoples lives, and there's much growing skepticism that has been overblown.

[Ixtab]

No I dont. I already expressed my basic view here that it is morals and not genetics that make a nation great.Define 'greatness'.
If you mean moral greatness, then the statement 'morals make a nation great' would seem circular.

[The Retard]

A lot of us already take part in eugenics without even knowing it - with the use of birth control and contraceptives. I think its unrealistic in todays society that we'll move past this point. We had more control over population in the past than we do now.

The U.S. had a sort of uncontrolled eugenic plan with the anti-miscegenation laws, but that doesn't imply the offspring will be an improvement.(Well depends on who you talk to.)

Questions:

Wouldn't eugenics ultimately lead to gencoide, which we already have harsh rules against?

Whos to say we won't need a little diversity? Obviously, these intillegent people won't be doing menial work.

[Ravenheart]

Yes, I believe in eugenics. Government programs to that effect should probably be left to strict regulations for germ depositories, immigration, and biotechnology, perhaps coupled with the sterilisation of those mentally incapable of rearing their own children. In this context I am also in favour of prenatal screening and voluntary abortion in case of a disfigured or otherwise retarded embryo.

[Helios Panoptes]

A lot of us already take part in eugenics without even knowing it - with the use of birth control and contraceptives. I think its unrealistic in todays society that we'll move past this point. We had more control over population in the past than we do now.

The U.S. had a sort of uncontrolled eugenic plan with the anti-miscegenation laws, but that doesn't imply the offspring will be an improvement.(Well depends on who you talk to.)

Questions:

Wouldn't eugenics ultimately lead to gencoide, which we already have harsh rules against?

Whos to say we won't need a little diversity? Obviously, these intillegent people won't be doing menial work.

Obviously, but it's equally obvious that the results of breeding "these intelligent people" with "menial workers" will not yield favorable results. No one is denying that there must be castes of different functional aptitudes, but that is entirely a different thing than supporting anarchic breeding. Additionally, there is no assumption that everyone is useful as a "menial worker" if nothing else. Some are so deficient that the collective would be better off without them.

[leondegrance]

There is nothing wrong with eugenics. Eugenics to some degree would be accomplished by social darwinism. The state and democracies subvert this to and up to a large degee.

[Starr]

In this context I am also in favour of prenatal screening and voluntary abortion in case of a disfigured or otherwise retarded embryo.

I will never be able to understand the rational of anyone who would be opposed to this. I would say mandatory rather than voluntary, but I do think that a lot more people would opt for the abortion if there wasn't a stigma attached to it, like there is now(in these cases).

[Kodos]

Some are so deficient that the collective would be better off without them.


The irony( well actually looking over your post... your better then most people who talk of taking harsh measures in the name of the collective so Ill apply that to others and not you specifically).

[Ravenheart]

I will never be able to understand the rational of anyone who would be opposed to this.

There are no rational arguments against it, or at least I haven't heard them.