Would you support eugenics?

[Ixtab]

Would you support Eugenics?

[Ixtab]

. . Edited . .

[Micaelis]

What is the 'intelligence gene' and where is it located?

[Ahknaton]

I support state-enforced eugenics (i.e. sterilization) for violent criminals and sex offenders.

However I don't believe the state has the right to use coercive means to either prevent someone from breeding or force them to have children against their will unless they have done something that justifies forfeiting their reproductive freedom (such as a criminal act).

In order to breed a genetically healthier population, I believe we should focus on creating a eugenic environment rather than using the coercive mechanism of state power. In practise this would mean ensuring that there are economic incentives for high-quality individuals to reproduce, and that children are not a major economic burden. One possible policy might be to give benefits in the form of tax breaks and childcare subsidies to women with a tertiary qualification who wish to have children. I don't like the idea of carrying out eugenics based on genetic screening or direct genetic manipulation, because it bypasses the social environment as a selection mechanism. although these treatments should be available on a voluntary basis to responsible individuals who wish to minimise the risk of transmission of genetic ailments to their children.

A relevent factoid is that in China, individuals who possess a university education are exempt from the "one child" policy.

[Ahknaton]

What is the 'intelligence gene' and where is it located?The fact that multiple genes contribute to intelligence, and that these genes also affect other traits, does not change the fact that intelligence has a genetic component. Neither does the fact that intelligence is partly determined by environmental influences.

If it was not possible to select for higher intelligence on a genetic basis, then it would have been impossible for intelligence to evolve in the first place.

[Micaelis]

The fact that multiple genes contribute to intelligence, and that these genes also affect other traits, does not change the fact that intelligence has a genetic component. Neither does the fact that intelligence is partly determined by environmental influences.

If it was not possible to select for higher intelligence on a genetic basis, then it would have been impossible for intelligence to evolve in the first place.

Really? I though the brain was the seat of intelligence. :confused: And what is intelligence anyway? Is it not an acquiring after-the-fact?

[Ahknaton]

Really? I though the brain was the seat of intelligence. :confused: The development of the brain is directed by genes and environment. Therefore intelligence is determined by the combination of and interaction between genes and environment.
And what is intelligence anyway? Is it not an acquiring after-the-fact?You're playing your familiar semantic word-games again, but let me humour you and put it another way then: genes play a large part in determining the capacity of an individual to develop intelligence.

Two definitions of intelligence:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. - American Psychological Association

a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do. - Gottfriedson, 1997

Look up Jensen's "g Factor" for a more rigorous definition of general intelligence.

[Fade the Butcher]

In an enlightened society, this would be a non-issue, but unfortunately we live in a nation where the vast majority of Americans are still mentally in the Dark Ages. No one objects to attempts to improve the environment of future generations. Parents are free to choose the most beautiful and intelligent mates, free to enroll their children in expensive private schools, free to surround them with books in a stimulating home environment, free to ensure their children consume only the most nutritious foods, free to ensure their children have access to the best healthcare and so on. There is a widespread belief, however, that there is something fundamentally wicked about attempts to improve heredity.

The argument against state mandated eugenics is just as ridiculous. Does anyone regret that we have all but abolished smallpox and polio by requiring people to submit to compulsory vaccinations? No, I would say that was a small price to pay, a bargain even, compared to the rewards we have since reaped in progress. Suppose we could use germline genetic engineering to give everyone 20/20 vision or PGD to ensure that no one is born with cystic fibrosis or fragile X syndrome. This is a bad thing? Why? What sort of backward, born again, reactionary, Luddite would oppose such treatments if they were feasible simply because they are eugenics?

The Pope, apparently.

[Micaelis]

The development of the brain is directed by genes and environment. Therefore intelligence is determined by the combination of and interaction between genes and environment.

...which mutates into...

genes play a large part in determining the capacity of an individual to develop intelligence.

So what do genes determine? Intelligence or the capacity to acquire intelligence? Are we not discussing the health of the brain rather than intelligence when we discuss DNA and its manipulation? We wouldn't want to construct teleologies, afterall!

[Ahknaton]

...which mutates into...
The statements are not in conflict with each other. Genes determine a capacity to develop intelligence, which may be realised to a greater or lesser extent depending on the individual's environment. Therefore intelligence is determined by both genes and environment.
So what do genes determine? Intelligence or the capacity to acquire intelligence?
Both.
Are we not discussing the health of the brain rather than intelligence when we discuss DNA and its manipulation? We wouldn't want to construct teleologies, afterall!When breeding horses, are you not talking about the cardio-vascular fitness and muscular strength of a racehorse rather than it's ability to win races? That doesn't mean you can't breed a horse to win races. It's really a meaningless distinction. If you want to breed for an ability, select for the traits that form the biological underpinnings of that ability. It's not complicated if you don't make it.

[Micaelis]

The statements are not in conflict with each other. Genes determine a capacity to develop intelligence, which may be realised to a greater or lesser extent depending on the individual's environment.

Genes determine the initial growth of the brain from its ectodermal to neural phase. From that point the growth of the brain is given to the glia and neuron connections. What you are purporting is not in accordance with science, neither is eugenics, which is a vehicle for racial or social teleology. Intelligence and brain are not synonyms. To declare them equal is to ignore the cultural underpinnings of intelligence, or its semanteme.

[Ahknaton]

Genes determine the initial growth of the brain from its ectodermal to neural phase. From that point the growth of the brain is given to the glia and neuron connections.
How does this contradict my assertion that both genes and environment influence the development of intelligence? All brains are not interchangeable at the end of the initial growth phase. Therefore the influence of genetic differences is felt long afterwards. In any case, you are incorrect, new brain cells can in fact grow throughout the lifetime of the individual.
What you are purporting is not in accordance with science, neither is eugenics, which is a vehicle for racial or social teleology. On the contrary, it is your worldview that is not in accordance with science, since you are effectively denying the inheritability of intelligence, a trait that is widely accepted as having a significant inheritable component.

And exactly why should I avoid "racial or social teleology"? I hold that it is better to be intelligent is than to be stupid, therefore social policy should have as one of its aims the proliferation of intelligent individuals over stupid ones. I do not apologise for this or feel the need to provide justification ad infinitum. No ideology can avoid teleology other than complete nihilism.
Intelligence and brain are not synonyms. To declare them equal is to ignore the cultural underpinnings of intelligence, or its semanteme.I did not declare the brain and intelligence to be synonyms, I only acknowledged that the brain is the seat of intelligence, as you yourself stated. I also acknowledged environmental influences on intelligence, which includes the cultural environment. Furthermore, I have provided you with two definitions of intelligence and pointed you to a third. It is a given that my statements are valid only within a particular cultural context and definition of intelligence. This is unavoidable, and I have indicated which definitions i.e. "cultural underpinnings" I am working with.

[Micaelis]

Eugenics is not even a science. It's a teleology, a product of Platonic metaphysics.

[Gorilla]

Forcible harm to individuals resulting in sterilization and/or possible death may be avoided by technologies which may soon be availiable:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7638

Interaction of Sendai Virus and Rabbit Sperm: Transmission and Scanning Electron Microscopy
D. A. BUTHALA 1, R. J. ERICSSON 1, and G. T. CHUBB 1

1 Biology Department, Western Michigan University, Fertility Research, The Upjohn Company Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001 and Division of Biological and Medical Research Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439

Since rabbit sperm with adsorbed Sendai virus are capable of fertilizing ova in vitro without prior capacitation in vivo, the interaction of virus-sperm was studied with transmission and scanning electron microscopy. The virus-like particles adsorb almost exclusively to the anterior head region of sperm, either ejaculated or taken from the cauda epididymis. Head-to-head agglutination of motile sperm, seen immediately atfer mixing with virus, is due to this localized adsorption of virus. Sperm taken from the caput epididymis, however, do not undergo head to head agglutination when mixed with Sendai virus. The difference in fertilizing capacity of sperm from the caput epididymis and from the cauda epididymis is believed to be related to the appearance of sites capable of adsorbing virus only in the sperm from the cauda epididymis, the same sites being associated with changes necessary for sperm-ovum interaction.

http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/325

[Ahknaton]

Eugenics is not even a science. It's a teleology, a product of Platonic metaphysics.
Psychometrics and the study of the inheritability of traits like intelligence is science, though it may be applied to a telos such as eugenic improvement of the population.

Please explain why you oppose teleology in general or this telos in particular.

I see no problem with Platonic metaphysics either.

[The Retard]

Yes, but only state-enforced Eugenics

I don't see how you could put eugenics in the hand of our current world leaders.

[Jonathan]

I went for option 3 as a compromise. I support eugenics in so far as I would rather impregnate one of my peers than some "crack-whore". I don't have much of a problem with the state incentivizing eugenics, but I wouldn't support forceful eugenics. I'm also skeptical about the "genetic engineering" side of it all. I prefer the more natural end.

[The Retard]

I went for option 3 as a compromise. I support eugenics in so far as I would rather impregnate one of my peers than some "crack-whore". I don't have much of a problem with the state incentivizing eugenics, but I wouldn't support forceful eugenics. I'm also skeptical about the "genetic engineering" side of it all. I prefer the more natural end.

I didn't pick the third option because people are so vain. We might end up with 1,000 Paris Hiltons. :cuss:

[Jonathan]

I didn't pick the third option because people are so vain. We might end up with 1,000 Paris Hiltons. :cuss:
That's what's happening while we don't have eugenics :p

[Sinclair]

If people want voluntary eugenics, like, say, not having kids if they have congenital illnesses, why not? No biggie.

But state-enforced eugenics would see a lot of problems, like corruption (People "buying" some sort of good genes certificate, let's say).

[Eddy]

Only voluntary. It would be idiotic of me to support moving the power of reproductive choices away from myself and towards third parties whom I don't trust.

[Jonathan]

It would be idiotic of me to support moving the power of reproductive choices away from myself and towards third parties whom I don't trust.
Idiotic of anyone.

[Eddy]

Idiotic of anyone.

I agree, but most people make decisions on social policy based on the assumption that they're the ones calling the shots, and this is almost NEVER true, especially regarding us plebes on net forums.

[Kodos]

However I don't believe the state has the right to use coercive means to either prevent someone from breeding

I don't see why breeding should be considered a "right"? I understand Edana's point but the fact that the stupid tend to have far more children then the middle class and above is such a threat to civilization long term that it has to be addressed...

[Ravenheart]

"Yes, either state-enforced or voluntary 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 and severe criminals whose deviance has a demonstrable genetic component. In this context I am also in favour of prenatal screening and voluntary abortion in case of a disfigured or otherwise retarded embryo. Embryo selection should also be legalised, and more funding moved towards research into germline therapy.

[jcs]

The only thing I support which would have some sort of impact on the gene pool is the execution of violent criminals (not just sterilization--what's that going to do but piss them off even more?).

Otherwise, I'm opposed.

[cyborg]

Liberal democracies will not allow any enforced eugenics. We will be given substitute options in the form of gene manipulation and cybernetic implants. Gene manipulation, psychotherapy, pharmaceuticals and cybernetics are good for business. Enforced eugenics does not directly translate into immediate business profit.

[Fade the Butcher]

If people want voluntary eugenics, like, say, not having kids if they have congenital illnesses, why not? No biggie.

The problem with voluntary eugenics is that without state subsidization and regulation the scenario Silver describes in his book is likely to occur. So, instead of eugenics being a wonderful new science that everyone can benefit from, the benefits will accrue to the wealthy few who can afford enhancement therapies for their children.

But state-enforced eugenics would see a lot of problems, like corruption (People "buying" some sort of good genes certificate, let's say).

This is what you want?

Dateline USA: May 15, 2350

It is now three hundred years later and although you are long since gone, a number of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren are now alive, mostly unbeknownst to one another. The United States of America still exists, but it is a different place from the one familiar to you. The most striking difference is that the extreme polarization of society that began during the 1980s has now reached its logical conclusion, with all people belonging to one of two classes. The people of one class are referred to as Naturals, while those in the second class are called the Gene-enriched or simply the GenRich.

These new classes of society cut across what used to be traditional racial and ethnic lines. In fact, so much mixing has occurred during the last three hundred years that sharp divisions according to race -- black versus white versus Asian -- no longer exist. Instead, the American populace has finally become the racial melting pot that earlier leaders had long hoped for. The skin color of Americans comes in all shades from African brown to Scandinavian pink, and traditional Asian facial features are present to a greater or lesser extent in a large percentage of Americans as well.

The GenRich -- who account for 10 percent of the American population -- all carry synthetic genes. Genes that were created in the laboratory and did not exist within the human species until twenty-first century reproductive geneticists began to put them there. The GenRich are a modern day hereditary class of genetic aristocrats.

Some of the synthetic genes carried by present-day members of the GenRich class were already carried by their parents. These genes were transmitted to today's GenRich the old-fashioned way, from parent to child through sperm or egg. These were placed into GenRich embryos through the application of genetic engineering techniques shortly after conception.

The GenRich class is anything but homogenous. There are many types of GenRich families, and many subtypes within each type. For example, there are GenRich athletes who can trace their descent back to professional sports players from the twenty-first century. One subtype of GenRich athlete is the GenRich football player, and a sub-subtype is the GenRich running back. Embryo selection techniques have been used to make sure that a GenRich running back has received all of the natural genes that made his unenhanced foundation ancestor excel at the position. But in addition, at each generation beyond the foundation ancestor, sophisticated genetic enhancements have accumulated so that the modern-day GenRich running back can perform in a way not conceivable for any unenhanced Natural. Of course, all professional baseball, football, and basketball players are special GenRich subtypes. After three hundred years of selection and enhancement, these GenRich individuals all have athletic skills that are clearly "nonhuman" in the traditional sense. It would be impossible for any Natural to compete.

Another GenRich type is the GenRich scientist. Many of the synthetic genes carried by the GenRich scientist are the same as those carried by all other members of the GenRich class, including some that enhance a variety of physical and mental attributes, as well as others that provide resistance to all known forms of human disease. But in addition, the present-day GenRich scientist has accumulated a set of particular synthetic genes that work together with his "natural" heritage to produce an enhanced scientific mind. Although the GenRich scientist may appear to be different from the GenRich athlete, both GenRich types have evolved by a similar process. The foundation ancestor for the modern GenRich scientist was a bright twenty-first century scientist who could produce even more brilliant children. There are numerous other GenRich types including GenRich businessmen, GenRich musicians, GenRich artists, and even GenRich intellectual generalists who all evolved in the same way.

Not all present-day GenRich individuals can trace their foundation ancestors back to the twenty-first century, when genetic enhancement was first perfected. During the twenty-second and twenty-third centuries, some Natural families garnered the financial wherewithal required to place their children in the GenRich class. But with the passage of time, the genetic distance between the Naturals and the GenRich has become greater and greater, and now there is little movement up from the Natural to GenRich class. It seems fair to say that society is on the verge of reaching the final point of complete polarization.

All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by the members of the GenRich class. GenRich parents can afford to send their children to private schools rich in the resources required for them to take advantage of their enhanced genetic potential. In contrast, Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers, and their children go to public schools. But twenty-fourth century public schols have little in common with their predecessors from the twentieth century. Funds for public education have declined steadily since the beginning of the twenty-first century, and now Natural children are only taught the basic skills they need to perform the kinds of tasks they'll encounter in the jobs available to members of their class.

There is still some intermarriage as well as sexual intermingling between a few GenRich individuals and Naturals. But, as one might imagine, GenRich parents put intense pressure on their children not to dilute their expensive genetic endowment in this way. And as time passes, the mixing of the classes will become less and less frequent for reasons of both environment and genetics.

The environmental reason is clear enough: GenRich and Natural children grow up and live in segregated social worlds where there is little chance for contact between them. The genetic reason, however, was unanticipated.

It is obvious to everyone that with each generation of genetic enhancement, the genetic distance separating the GenRich and Naturals is growing larger and larger. But a startling consequence of the expanding genetic distance has just come to light. In a nationwide survey of the few interclass GenRich-Natural couples that could be identified, sociologists have discovered an astounding 90 percent level of infertility. Reproductive geneticists have examined these couples and come to the conclusion that the infertility is caused primarily by the incompatibility between the genetic makeup of each member.

Evolutionary biologists have long observed instances in which otherwise fertile individuals taken from two separate populations prove infertile when mated to each other. And they tell the sociologists and reproductive geneticists what is going on: the process of species separation between the GenRich and Naturals has already begun. Together, the sociologists, the reproductive geneticists, and the evolutionary biologists are willing to make the following prediction: If the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue at the present rate, then by the end of the third millennium, the GenRich class and the Natural class will become the GenRich humans and the Natural humans -- entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

[Ixtab]

If people want voluntary eugenics, like, say, not having kids if they have congenital illnesses, why not? No biggie. Voluntary eugenics also includes having abortions if you know the child is going to be defective. It may also include paying or rewarding criminals for consenting to be sterilised, or something along those lines. Voluntary eugenics can be effective, but not effective enough.

[jcs]

I'm sick of the term 'GenRich.' It sounds like some faggot phrase coined by the most cliche sci-fi novelist, the name of some sort of imagined futuristic corporation's enhancement program.
"The commercial played on the Holosphere. 'Your children, too, can be GenRich--and it's now more affordable than ever! For the low, low price of 700,000 utoporos, you can purchase success for your descendents. Your children are the future. GenRich is the future. Brought to you by GenLabs."
-A.K. Asalein, The Transmigration of the Starship Foundation: A Genetic Odyssey II, page 43

[Sinclair]

The problem with voluntary eugenics is that without state subsidization and regulation the scenario Silver describes in his book is likely to occur. So, instead of eugenics being a wonderful new science that everyone can benefit from, the benefits will accrue to the wealthy few who can afford enhancement therapies for their children.

Well, state subsidisation then. I believe in public schools and public health care, to try to level the playing field, why then would I not believe in "enhancement programs" that are subsidised, or offered free (as it would benefit society in general, in much the way other social programs do). Also, the gov't should provide testing for congenital defects and illnesses, for the same reason.

With my politics, why would I support something that would massively increase the gap between rich and poor? I'm against the privatisation of health care, for instance.

[Fade the Butcher]

I'm impressed, Sinclair. You're right. What sense does it make to deny technology to parents that could enhance the lives of their children?

[Ixtab]

Newer members should bote as well.

[cerberus]

No, where does it all end ?

[Ravenheart]

No, where does it all end ?

Perfection ;)

[Yockey]

Eugenics = death of the white race. Definitely NO.

[Helios Panoptes]

Eugenics = death of the white race. Definitely NO.

Elucidate, please.

[Yockey]

Elucidate, please.

I haven't read anything relating to Eugenics that advocates keeping with one's race; thus, if it doesn't advocate that, it allows races to mix. I'm surprised antis aren't for Eugenics because it seems like a great race-mixing plan.

Ultimately, what would be people like after we "perfected" them? Not even human anymore, but part robotic raceless cyborgs.

[Helios Panoptes]

The reasons they don't support it are clear. Most minorities are not suited to civil society, so even if there was a race-neutral negative eugenics program, those groups would be most impacted. The antis, as you call them, blame the environment for everything. They are loth to acknowledge that we could improve society through eugenics, as opposed to their euthenics, which has been an abject failure thus far, yet they stand on their pulpits and blame racism for our unpleasant problem. Eugenics, which posits a genetic explanation for social phenomena, is anathema to them.

By the way, you might be interested in Raymond Cattell's Beyondism(a eugenic system), which advocates reproductive isolation for different populations to the extent of speciation. From Richard Lynn's review of A New Morality from Science: Beyondism: "As a general rule it would be best for national cultures to keep themselves to themselves and not to admit immigrants. There are several reasons for this. Isolation would give rise to societies with greater diversity and individuality, both culturally and genetically. Indeed, it would be desirable if the human race could evolve several different non-interbreeding species, since this would increase the options for evolution to work on."

[Northern_Paladin]

I would support state sponsered Eugenics for the creation of a healthier society.

[Anonymous Poster]

No, obviously a government cannot be trusted with a eugenics programme. I support the destruction of technology, which will correctly refine and upbreed the race.

[Incitatus]

Of course I would. After WWII, especially during the '60s, cultural marxism thought those with a hereditary handicap (and other 'disadvantaged' by eugenic laws) that they were a supressed group who had to stand up for their rights. They said the same thing to foreigners, homoseksuals, kids, women, junkies, and so on, all because of one goal: destabilizing our traditional western society and our traditional way of life, because in that kind of society people couldn't be manipulated into believing in the concept of marxism. This is why eugenics became an "evil" thing: it's all part of a concept of oppressors and oppressed. Like they said "racist" whites oppressed minorities, like they said Christianity oppressed homoseksuals, like they said parents oppressed their kids, ..., common-sense laws like the eugenic laws were said to oppress those with a hereditary handicap and others who are 'disadvantaged' by eugenic laws.
Thank God there are still people who don't let their minds be poisoned by these subversive "intellectuals". Every nationalist who cares about the future of his race and mankind in general should support the concept of eugenics! It's the only way of saving mankind from the current process of degeneration.

[Niko Bellic]

If you want to preach eugenics and encourage people to do it, I wish you luck, but I'm against any use of state power that tells consenting adults who they can and can't have sex with. :)

[Starr]

I am really only for the sterilization of people who have serious genetic problems, that cannot be corrected. especially of the mental kind.

[Ixtab]

------If you want to preach eugenics and encourage people to do it, I wish you luck, but I'm against any use of state power that tells consenting adults who they can and can't have sex with. :)Why?

[Niko Bellic]

------Why?

Because it's an absurd and unreasonable use of power. The state has no business in private sexual relations other than establishing an appropriate age at which the individual has the legal power to make those choices themselves, and assume all the consequences from any bad choices they may make. The only reason even that is necessary is to punish those who would maliciously take advantage of the ignorance of a child.

[Ixtab]

Because it's an absurd and unreasonable use of power.Why is it absurd and unreasonable though?

The state has no business in private sexual relations other than establishing an appropriate age at which the individual has the legal power to make those choices themselves,I already know you think that. I want to know why.

[Helios Panoptes]

If it is not State-enforced then you would have the scenario that was given where you dont have an even playing field, i.e. you end up with the GenRich and the GenPoor.

Yes, that would be with GE, but what about Galtonian eugenics? I think that benefits could be reaped from socialized birth control(the underclass has the most unintended births) and the adjustment of the welfare system to stop reinforcing the births of the underclass. In the beginning, there could be a program that paid people for sterilization. It would be egalitarian, insofar as anyone could collect the reward, irrespective of qualification. Of course, certain types of people would be more likely to submit than others. After this gained wider acceptance, the program could become more directed - reinforce sterlility for some, reinforce births for others.

Because it's an absurd and unreasonable use of power. The state has no business in private sexual relations other than establishing an appropriate age at which the individual has the legal power to make those choices themselves, and assume all the consequences from any bad choices they may make. The only reason even that is necessary is to punish those who would maliciously take advantage of the ignorance of a child.

You need to take into account that a person's choices do not impact just himself, but those surrounding him, also. They cannot feasibly assume the consequences of their bad choices because an impact on society itself follows naturally. A man is not an island; the nation is an organism, the individual is a cell. Cancer spreads.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Marraige: One man, One woman, One race, but free choice.

I believe race mixing is playing god, but I also believe organized eugenics is playing god and will cause more harm than good. In a word, no.

Whenever marriage becomes a scientific calculation, that is not a good thing for society, but I see race mixing as a form of this eugenics. You are playing with fire if you practice miscengenation/other forms of eugenics.

As long as you stay within your race, don't practice beastility, don't practice incest, don't practice homosexuality, the government should not be choosing your spouse.

This is the one thing I give the Catholic church credit for. It was the only real organized body of eductated people that was capable of really putting down that idea.

[LastResort56]

Yes I would support eugenic laws dedicated to help weed out the unhealthly and extremely unintelligent. But I would never support mass sterilization or strict guildlines as to whom a person may have relations with, it should be minimal yet effective.

[Helios Panoptes]

Marraige: One man, One woman, One race, but free choice.

I believe race mixing is playing god, but I also believe organized eugenics is playing god and will cause more harm than good. In a word, no.

Whenever marriage becomes a scientific calculation, that is not a good thing for society, but I see race mixing as a form of this eugenics. You are playing with fire if you practice miscengenation/other forms of eugenics.

As long as you stay within your race, don't practice beastility, don't practice incest, don't practice homosexuality, the government should not be choosing your spouse.

You are confusing eugenics with dysgenics. There is data on social indicators, which is reinforced by psychometric testing, that the members of some races are unsuited to civil society due, in no small part, to their relatively lesser general intelligence. They are in a condition of genetic lag. Many people, particularly members of certain races, are in this condition. I.e., their genetic constitution renders them unfit to make their way productively in modern society.

You must understand that ethos and mores become an artificial selector. Man, in many states, is no longer subject to the whims of nature to the extent that a hypothetical "natural man" would be. We have established a system that rewards people for having high birth rates, although, they provide minimal parental care(r-selected) because the state subsidizes these births. People who are highly intelligent have fewer children because they are distracted by their occupations and educations. This is a clear indicator of moribundity. It must be realized that the order we have established interferes to the extent of a eugenics program, but for the worse!


This is the one thing I give the Catholic church credit for. It was the only real organized body of eductated people that was capable of really putting down that idea.

The Church deserves not credit, but rebuke. It was a retardant in this instance.

I think that you would find that one would reinforce the other. Only through social engineering would you be able to create a world where the average person was able to accept Eugenics as being necessary. The media still goes on about how it is so bad what the Nazis did, including eugenics, so the average perception is not a positive one.

Personally, I think a bit of education and the reminder of what could happen in the future if we do not go ahead with this should be enough to gain the support of the masses.

I agree. Also, it must be explained the the Nazis had many policies, not all of them bad. We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

In the present day I think what we really need to be thinking about is getting the birth rate up first before looking at removing possible children (Negative Eugenics). If the European population rate was 3 children per female then we could start looking at removing genetic diseases each generation like Israel is doing right now. At the end of the day it is a numbers game, and we dont have the numbers. We need some Positive Eugenics like IVF treatment and financial kickbacks for children; did you know that 8% of all children born in Israel today are IVF children? Imagine if all of Europe and the US was to increase it's birthrate by 8%! Our governments would not have the excuse that we need the huge amounts of immigration we are seeing at the moment to replace all those that we have lost through our own low birthrates.

If we offered monetary rewards for any children, don't you think the underclass would disproportionately be rewarded? They breed the most already and they are the poorest. The problem I can see with that these births would be reinforced more strongly than those with a eugenic character. The negative correlation between general intelligence and birth rate is so firmly established, so consistent that I believe we would need to institute negative eugenics to reverse it; or, at the very least, qualified positive eugenics.

I would be interested to see if Japan has IVF treatment programs, or anything remotely in the realm of eugenics. Maybe someone more clued up can tell us?

I performed a search and here is what I came up with:

One in every 100 babies in Japan are born as a result of IVF or ICSI, but the rate among women who gave birth after IVF is just 12.4 percent of all those who received the treatment in 1999. Those who gave birth after ICSI stood only 14.9 percent in the same year.

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003/Fertility-Rate-Falling-Japan5oct03.htm

Anyway, I voted State-enforced only as I cannot imagine anything changing otherwise. I am against gene-therapy as I feel it is a unnatural advantage and we know too little about the genetic code to be fiddling with it, I say this as a geneticist myself I might add. We thought that the DNA we called "junk" was just that, but a week or so ago we made a major discovery, it turned out that it's very important to gene regulation. Imagine if we have got rid of it in our ignorance, I shudder to think about those consequences.

I support continued research into gene therapy, though, even if we are not prepared to apply it currently.

There is a thread on "junk DNA" here somewhare.

I also believe that we should use Natures checks and balances to make sure we are not screwing up humanity, hence why everything must remain natural, i.e. sexual intercourse and IVF. Women who cannot have children should naturally should not pass on their genes though technological means, but given the chance to have children by other means.

It depends on the cause of the infertility. If it is not resultant from a congenital defect, then I'd not oppose the women passing on their genes(that is, if other conditions were met, such as these births would be eugenic).

[themistocles]

You know.....once we've euthanized the idiot classes, we'll need to breed or import another slew of idiots to take their place.

[Niko Bellic]

Why is it absurd and unreasonable though?

I already know you think that. I want to know why.

From my perspective, I can't understand why anyone would have to ask. Without the freedom to choose which paths my life is going to take, life is pointless. Mate selection is just one of those choices, but one of the most important. I'd rather be dead than live in a state that had that much power over its citizens.

[Keystone]

From my perspective, I can't understand why anyone would have to ask. Without the freedom to choose which paths my life is going to take, life is pointless.
You would be living for your State and Race, so they may improve Man, for what purpose I don't know. There's a point in there somewhere and if you can't see it, you're not a candidate for breeding.
Mate selection is just one of those choices, but one of the most important. I'd rather be dead than live in a state that had that much power over its citizens.
Ayup.

[Nilüfer]

Would I support a Lebensborn type mating program where people are matched up according to how Aryan they look? No, that is totally fruity, anal, soulless and too much government interference for my liking. Certain people; if not for the good of the human genepool, then for their own good; should be prevented from reproducing. Criminals? No. Functional loonies? No. I'm thinking of extremely mentally handicapped people because they are many times more susceptible to being raped or taken advantage of sexually than the normally abled. I'd also support castration (or ideally, execution) for rapists and child molesters, but not due to eugenics. Highly intelligent and gifted people should be encouraged to have more children or maybe rewarded financially for doing so, but having a red China type one child policy for the low classes or those of lesser intelligence is too draconian. Dumb people do sometimes have smart children and people do sometimes escape extreme poverty to make something useful of themselves.

[Fade the Butcher]

You know.....once we've euthanized the idiot classes, we'll need to breed or import another slew of idiots to take their place.

We should build more machines.

[Fade the Butcher]

You would be living for your State and Race, so they may improve Man, for what purpose I don't know.

The progress of man, of course.

[Helios Panoptes]

Would I support a Lebensborn type mating program where people are matched up according to how Aryan they look? No, that is totally fruity, anal, soulless and too much government interference for my liking.

That would be an idiotic policy.

Certain people; if not for the good of the human genepool, then for their own good; should be prevented from reproducing. Criminals? No. Functional loonies? No. I'm thinking of extremely mentally handicapped people because they are many times more susceptible to being raped or taken advantage of sexually than the normally abled.

That is one of the strangest arguments that I have seen on the Phora, with all due respect, and I do not find it very compelling. On the one hand, we have people who are committing crimes, going on welfare, and generally making little contribution to advancement and on the other, we have the extremely retarded, who are barely a hindrance at all, quite frankly, yet it's the latter you want sterilized. They barely reproduce, if at all. They're dead ends - just strange, unfortunate blips on the radar screen. As aforementioned, people with profound cognitive deficits leaving them with mental ages under 1 are not prolific breeders, anyway. Any eugenics program created for the purpose of sterlizing the profoundly retarded would be so woefully misguided and inefficacious in bettering the Nation that I would oppose it on the grounds that it was a waste of resources, if for no other reason.

Highly intelligent and gifted people should be encouraged to have more children or maybe rewarded financially for doing so, but having a red China type one child policy for the low classes or those of lesser intelligence is too draconian. Dumb people do sometimes have smart children and people do sometimes escape extreme poverty to make something useful of themselves.

It is very rare. Policy must be dictated not by improbable exceptions, but general trends. If one is unwilling to submit to this general principle, it will prove impossible to establish any policy because, roughly speaking, there are always exceptions. To do nothing at all is a far worse course of action. Furthermore, intelligent people from unintelligent stock are especially likely to have their own offspring regress dramatically toward a low mean. To put it very simply, the gene combination has worked so perfectly for such an individual, that he could be said to have been a beneficiary of great fortune. His offspring will not be so lucky. That is why, for instance, intelligent blacks have children equal to or inferior to the children of unintelligent whites with respect to general intelligence.

[Helios Panoptes]

I love that saying, I have not heard it in years, I must write it down immediately! I agree Helios, the Nazis gave us a lot of positive things, many we have copied without giving credit where credit is due. One thing I think can be safely said was that they were less afraid to try new things, and this is the flaw of our current governments. Don't rock the boat because you will make waves!

True. Also, Inter-group conflict compels us towards advancement, which surely is a factor in the flurry of scientific progress that we see during times of conflict. States are simply more adventurous. The problem is, of course, that in times of war, the most capable people can be killed off(not always, moreso during a real war, not this Iraq nonsense) and there is destruction of nascent nations at the hands of ones which might not be more capable, but are just larger. The ideal system would preserve competition between discrete groups while minimizing war. The ideal interindividual ethical system should remain largely cooperative, but more nuanced. It must be realized that helping behavior may hinder progress and engender suffering in the future, and behavior should be adjusted accordingly. This also must be applied to the group level - allow national failures to perish, so that new racio-cultural experiments may rise from their ashes.

The beauty of IVF / ICSI is that usually it is the more affluent in society that use this service as they are the ones who leave having children to the point that they are no longer capable of having them, i.e. when they are infertile. After age 26 the female body starts to go down hill sexually, by age 40 women have a lot of trouble conceiving, and ironically, it is this inability to have children that makes them want to have children! "Oh no, I'm missing out!"

Yes, I should have been clearer. I was addressing specifically the financial kickbacks part of the quoted passage.

While I believe all women should be given a sum of say $10,000 per child to deal with initial costs of clothing, cots, car seats, diapers, etc etc, I do not feel that money given out on a "number of children" basis will encourage the women that we want to have children to actually have children. The rich have the money already, why would they want a paltry sum that a woman who was on the minimum wage would think of as a lot of money?

Exactly. That is the problem I have with providing universal reward for childbirth. The underclass will be disproportionately influenced to bear children and the more competent members of society will be influenced far less. This is precisely the effect that a eugenics program is working against.

I agree that if it is congenital then she should be able to have her genes passed on, but do we know for certain that it is congenital? I am sure we will find in the future that a lot of things we label as congenital are really the expression of a faulty gene sequence.

If the woman is unable to bear children because of a genetic defect, I would be less inclined to use technology to give her children than if her sterility was resultant from an acquired condition. However, I could see the possibility for exceptions to this guideline.

[Nilüfer]

That is one of the strangest arguments that I have seen on the Phora, with all due respect, and I do not find it very compelling.

They do have sex lives; abusive or otherwise; and do get pregnant. Most of them have abortions ($400-500 each) or miscarry, both of which often mean complications, and large hospital bills. That is a burden to the state, considering they tend to be on Medicaid. A one time, $900 operation could keep it all from happening, which is what I advocate for 'at risk' mentally retarded females. I suppose I'm approaching this subject strangely, as I'm more concerned about the quality of life for the people involved and reducing state medical costs rather than coming at it from a "them damn retard bitches polluting our bloodline" angle. But if there are less of those genes floating around as a side effect, that is not a bad thing. This project wouldn't even have to be state funded, it could be a non-profit thing with touchy feely "save the children" type donation commercials.

It is very rare. Policy must be dictated not by improbable exceptions, but general trends.

I'll assume you're picturing very stupid black people who have child after child while you are typing, and I agree they should be encouraged to undergo sterilization. Forced, no. Firmly encouraged, yes.

Furthermore, intelligent people from unintelligent stock are especially likely to have their own offspring regress dramatically toward a low mean.

That would depend on the intelligence of both parents, all grandparents and so on. Intelligent people can have unintelligent children, just look at George H.W. and Barbara Bush's offspring. What about parents who have several children, a few normally successful ones and one "welfare loser?" The normal children might have that dormant "loser gene" that they could pass on. There are also people with ultra high IQs who are totally insane misfits who do nothing for society. There are highly intelligent people who actively harm society through media manipulation, bad politics, white collar crime and the resulting expensive court cases. There are all sorts of people who are a burden to the system or genetically defective and not moronic welfare recipients. There are too many variables with intelligence to apply a program fairly. If you do something which targets one ethnic group or one class group it will be seen as unfair and the population will reject it. I don't know what sort of dictatorship eugenicists have in mind, I'm thinking of something within the current system.

[Helios Panoptes]

They do have sex lives; abusive or otherwise; and do get pregnant. Most of them have abortions ($400-500 each) or miscarry, both of which often mean complications, and large hospital bills. That is a burden to the state, considering they tend to be on Medicaid. A one time, $900 operation could keep it all from happening, which is what I advocate for 'at risk' mentally retarded females.

If the sexual activity is not impacting allele frequencies in the breeding population then it is not a great concern of mine. However, if pregnancies of the profoundly retarded are a drain on resources, then I would agree with you. I would need to investigate more thoroughly to reach a conclusion.

I suppose I'm approaching this subject strangely, as I'm more concerned about the quality of life for the people involved and reducing state medical costs rather than coming at it from a "them damn retard bitches polluting our bloodline" angle.

Eugenic policies will impact quality of life. Low intelligence is correlated with increased crime, increased poverty, increased welfare recipience, decreased occupational performance, increased unintended pregnancies, etc. All of these social indicators I'd say bear on quality of life. However, it's a philosophy of the future. It will begin to pay off not the moment programs are implemented, but years later in which time it will have the effect of lessening suffering.

I'll assume you're picturing very stupid black people who have child after child while you are typing, and I agree they should be encouraged to undergo sterilization. Forced, no. Firmly encouraged, yes.

We do not diverge as greatly as I had thought. The methods I support to address the aforementioned problem of a high dysgenic birth rate are whatever will get the job done, and the more efficiently and faster the better. In other words, if there were a forced sterlization program, I am not likely to oppose it. However, since it is unlikely for one to gain traction, I support the next best thing(s), which you also seem to support.

That would depend on the intelligence of both parents, all grandparents and so on. Intelligent people can have unintelligent children, just look at George H.W. and Barbara Bush's offspring. What about parents who have several children, a few normally successful ones and one "welfare loser?" The normal children might have that dormant "loser gene" that they could pass on. There are also people with ultra high IQs who are totally insane misfits who do nothing for society. There are highly intelligent people who actively harm society through media manipulation, bad politics, white collar crime and the resulting expensive court cases. There are all sorts of people who are a burden to the system or genetically defective and not moronic welfare recipients. There are too many variables with intelligence to apply a program fairly.

As I was saying, the application of science to social and political policy operates on the level of populations. At the level of individuals, there are exceptions to the correlations between psychometric factors and social indicators. However, there are strong trends which have been well-established. If we alter our policies as per the scientific data, over a span of generations we will see the frequency of factors altered and with them the relevant social indicators. As aforementioned, eugenics is not myopic; it addresses social issues in the long run and with greater permanence.

If you do something which targets one ethnic group or one class group it will be seen as unfair and the population will reject it.

I understand; if there is not a resurgence of racialist ideas, then eugenics would be established not on racial grounds, but on merit alone. Racialism would make the process more efficient by, for example, allowing us to take into account that blacks with IQs of 120 are not equivalent to whites with IQs of 120 with respect to their ability to produce intelligent children, but this could come down the line. Further, racialism works nicely with the idea of different discrete racio-cultural experiments, but I digress. A voluntary, "color-blind" eugenics program is far superior to what we have now.

It seems someone has been reading Mein Kampf, but I have to agree with you

I am reading Raymond B. Cattell's Beyondism: Religion from Science which discusses Galtonian eugenics founded upon an evolutionary worldview. I recommend it.

I suspect that we as a people expand as the resources are available, or atleast expand to the conceived limit. This is why I am so against immigration, they are taking our children from us by not allowing us to consolidate the wealth that our forefathers provided us with, rather we end up giving up a share of their hard work to someone elses people.

Additionally, immigration floods us with people who have undesirable genetic and cultural characteristics. They are often unintelligent and atavistic in their beliefs. Surely, the proliferation of their ideals and genes are not good for the host population.

The biggest problem I see with Eugenics is that as a population gets smarter they have less children. This seems to be a global trend, and I am wondering how we can reverse this mindset. I like Australia's attempt at increasing the birthrate, but it is not enough:

"One for the Mother, One for the Father, and One for the Country."

In Italy they tell women that they are not women unless they want and have children, is this fair? In many respects I have to say yes, maybe not for the woman but rather society as a whole (since they have one of the lowest birthrates in the Western World).

The degeneration of nations due to dysgenics once they achieve prosperity is a problem that spans human history(as indicated by, for example, the origination of the word "proletarian"). When states become rich and they are not spurred on by conflict, the upper classes tend to become reproductively shiftless and the underclass is afforded the ability to breed indiscriminately. We need to radically adjust people's attitudes. There are two man ways to boost morale. One is to foster congeniality and fellowship. This could be done by reducing intragroup strife between divergent ethnicities by increasing homogeneity. The other way is to engender a sense of duty by conditioning the individiual to understand his accomplishments as important to the group. This method uses pride, not love, to condition dutiful behavior. Strategies to increase people's sense of responsibility to their group outcome definitely need to be investigated.


I guess it comes down to the age old question that keeps surfacing here, does the state have the right to tell you how to reproduce? In the long run if society continues to go down hill I feel the answer will end up YES out of necessity even if the initial answer is NO.

Well said.

[themistocles]

We should build more machines.

Then we've got to find more qualified people to service them. They usually come from the idiot classes, too.

[Ixtab]

I am bumping this thread because we have many new members who have not as yet voted on this poll.

[antibuddha]

Curious to find out who your enemies and allies are, eh?

[Ixtab]

--Curious to find out who your enemies and allies are, eh?Exactly.

[Ixtab]

1.) Why on earth would anyone support state-enforced eugenics, but oppose voluntary eugenics?

2.) Thomas777, if you are reading this, why did you vote as you did? Just curious.

[Keystone]

I do not support eugenics. Besides not being keen on various Mad Doctors fucking about with agendas, a species that can't stop killing each other shouldn't be in charge of who gets what genes.

[Vindex]

If you are against any of your children mating and marrying a black criminal with diseases you support eugenics.

I do not support eugenics. Besides not being keen on various Mad Doctors fucking about with agendas, a species that can't stop killing each other shouldn't be in charge of who gets what genes.

[Keystone]

If you are against any of your children mating and marrying a black criminal with diseases you support eugenics.
You teach your children the best way you can, and then they are on their own. The responsibility is mine. I wouldn't want my child to marry a genetically engineered white asshole. Can you select for non-assholes?
The black criminal with disease is a scare tactic. I don't want anyone telling me where my genes go, thanks.

[Helios Panoptes]

My position on this subject has not changed.

[Brechun]

To an extent, yes. I'd like to see selective breeding practices put into place to perhaps create population groups with average IQ's similar to how the jews came about.

But eugenics is only viable if intelligence is substantially genetic and impermeable to environmental influences. Which is completely untrue.

[Helios Panoptes]

To an extent, yes. I'd like to see selective breeding practices put into place to perhaps create population groups with average IQ's similar to how the jews came about.

But eugenics is only viable if intelligence is substantially genetic and impermeable to environmental influences. Which is completely untrue.

To what extent do you think intelligence is genetic? How much greater would this figure have to be for it to be large enough for eugenics, in your opinion?

[Brechun]

To what extent do you think intelligence is genetic? How much greater would this figure have to be for it to be large enough for eugenics, in your opinion?

I myself believe IQ is 20-50% genetic, but how constant and permeable I can't say. I'd see it as more viable if it was in the 60-80% range like Hernstein and Murray put out in the Bell Curve.

I think any sensible person would support eugenics that seeks to breed out traits that are rather negative though- criminality, addiction, disease and bad recessive genes, etc. and you're seeing programs against things like that more often these days.

[Helios Panoptes]

I myself believe IQ is 20-50% genetic, but how constant and permeable I can't say. I'd see it as more viable if it was in the 60-80% range like Hernstein and Murray put out in the Bell Curve.

I think it is at least 50%, however, if the middle way in your range were accurate(35%), a careful breeding program could have a massive impact on the population's intelligence, especially when taking into account that the program would operate over multiple generations.

[Brechun]

I think it is at least 50%, however, if the middle way in your range were accurate(35%), a careful breeding program could have a massive impact on the population's intelligence, especially when taking into account that the program would operate over multiple generations.

Obviously, but it begs a question- which is more viable? Eugenics or social engineering?

Well, thinking about it now, it would make sense- a perfect example being China. They've been practicing numerous forms of eugenics ever since the Communists took control, and possibly more since they cover up so much shit over there. Yet that would also mean environmental gains in IQ. Millions of rural Chinese have been moving into the cities and being forced to adapt to urban life, most of them having their SES statuses and educational attainment transform within mere decades. You've basically got families who were living off farming rice padies a couple of generations ago to their descendants building high-tech military equipment in modern times. Obviously China has seen both sides of the issue, and they've been working perfectly with them.

[Ixtab]

Here is some of the evidence for the genetic basis of IQ:

(1) With other animals, we usually test the heritability of a trait through cross-fertilising. With humans, the closest equivalent is the adoption study. IQs of identical twins reared apart (who share 100% of their genes) are more highly correlated than the IQs of fraternal twins reared together (who share about 50% of their genes). The best heritability estimates for IQ are about 70 percent and this is the general consensus.

(2) Plomin compared allelic frequencies of low-IQ individuals and individuals with high IQs, finding significant allelic frequency differences between the high- and the low-IQ groups, and employing certain statistical procedures to rule out the effects of chance.

(3) Another way to test the heritability of intelligence is by studying the effects of inbreeding depression, which suggest that IQ is a dominant polyenic trait which is reduced by the combination of recessive alleles.

(4) Intelligence behaves like height and other physical traits in that the resemblence between genetic relatives increases with age: unrelated adopted children reared together have IQs which correlate .25, but by adolescence this correlation drops to almost zero. This is consistent with the known fact that phenotype more reflects genotype with age. A strictly envrinmental theory would predict just the opposite: as children grow older, being raised together as they are, they will resemble each more and more with age. But that's exactly the opposite of what happens.

[Vindex]

Even then you would be wanting to determine where your genes go, white asshole or nigger. So then the rest becomes moot.

You teach your children the best way you can, and then they are on their own. The responsibility is mine. I wouldn't want my child to marry a genetically engineered white asshole. Can you select for non-assholes?
The black criminal with disease is a scare tactic. I don't want anyone telling me where my genes go, thanks.

[Insidium]

I most certainly would. Not quite to the extent as shown in the movie Gattaca (highly recommended for proponents of eugenics), but we should definitely try to make the average human better.

[Brechun]

People here are usually of above-average intelligence so this eugenics program would be rediculously rigorous- something that I can't support at all.

[calvin]

Yes, I too am fearful of elimination.

[Alvo]

never And Ever.