Hugo Holbling

Like Trolls, perhaps?

Philosoft

The English race??!! Daft.

Far be it for you to narrow it down a little.

Maybe you should just leave the word "race" to mean "goal-oriented competition that values speed"? Your use of it to label any group of homo sapiens sapiens you are currently referring to is annoying in addition to being inaccurate.

beausoleil

First of all, the hereditability of feeblemindedness, insanity, and delinquency, and other like mental defects [i[blah blah blah[/i]

Given the number of eminent artists who suffered from mental defects, this might be risky. Are you prepared to do without the like of Van Gogh, for instance?

AtomSmasher

I won't comment on the prose, as I am often guilty of the same thing. I believe you have presented some sound concepts that need to be addressed.

Yes this is well agreed upon, however, for many of the readers
that aren't already familiar with the subject, you should include a
few links to sources. Unfortunately eugenics is not a well received
topic, therefor you should support your arguments pathologically and
with diverse sources.

I took the inverse approach and wrote a paper on dysgenics (the
opposite of eugenics; genetic deterioration due to the elimination of
natural selection as the controlling factor in human reproductive
rates). Indirectly it presents a case for negative eugenics which is
essentially: discouraging the reproduction of individuals with
abherant traits (yes good/bad traits are subjective but that's for
another discussion) -- primarily we mean intelligence.

It is generally agreed that more intelligent people tend to produce more
intelligent offspring and unintelligent people tend to produce
unintelligent offspring (yes, again, measurements of intelligence and
the importance of particular modes of intelligence are also [or can
be argued to be] subjective as well) and it is also well agreed that intelligence is one of the most desirable traits. Therefor it would seem to be both moral and ethical to try to produce more intelligence in successive generations. Morality and ethics are only a problem when you actually set about accomplishing this by controlling the proliferation of desired genes in the breeding population.

Unfortunately, eugenics for many conjures up images of swift-booted nazis and mad scientists. Most people who have an understanding of the basic concept will find it sound. Since, as you said, we are not considering the ethics, we may proceed unhindered with a reasonable discussion.

Eugenics is essentially: encouraging the proliferation of desired traits and discouraging the proliferation of undesired traits in a given population. We (humans) have actually practiced eugenics consciously for thousands of years. Consider the household dog - do you believe the poodle or afghan would be well adapted for life in the wild? Not at all, humans have been selectively breeding animals for preferential traits. A particular fur color or body size in dogs, speed and strength in horses, etc. This is directly applied (and successfull) eugenics.

When selective breeding is done in animals we consider inferior nobody raises an eyebrow. Mention applying it to humans and people just "freak out".

This is essentially negative eugenics and was practiced all over the western world throughout the early 1900's. There is a history or voluntary and forced/coerced sterilizations in a surprisingly diverse list of countries including the United States, Great Britton, Brazil, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, etc.. From what I understand there was a still a eugenics program in Sweden performing sterilizations even into the early 1970's.

This form of eugenics has been done already, but I don't see it being practiced again in the foreseeable future.

Logically sound, ethical heresy. This would require oversight from a third party which has established criteria for what are permissable and unacceptable abnormalities, few of which would be popularly supported. Mothers tend to love their children regardless, and they are the ones you have to convince. Physical abnormalites often prevent the reproduction of the individual, it is merely the cost on society that they incurr. Even if individuals choose to care for someone with physical (or mental) abnormality, there is still a cost to society as a whole from the effort necessary to maintain such a person. People raise babies at a substantial cost, however it is expected that the baby will grow up and achieve many things that offset it's initial cost. If you consider a child an investment, raising an abnormal child at a considerable cost and no return would be very expensive indeed.

Uneducate people reproduce disproportionately (younger and more often) to acedemic people. If we consider scholarship to be an indicator of preferential traits then yes. Polygamy may well increase the number of births from more educated and career oriented people.

Agreed, in all fairness, polygamy should also apply to women. Whether a woman would choose to bear a larger number of children with her several husbands is hard question to answer but I'll ask a few of the women I know and see if there is a consensus. Consider for a moment, the religion of Islam: you are allowed to have up to 4 wives if you can support them all. Therefor economic success would select for smarter or more capable men (probably). In western culture (as opposed to middle-eastern or islamic culture) we consider women to be completely equal to men and therefor should be allowed multiple spouses as well.

Perhaps you should consider humanity a single species and therefor racial bias wouldn't be a factor, the disclaimer would also be unnecessary.

I have presented many similar arguments in the thread I just created about dysgenics, I'd like to hear your thoughts as well.

Totalitarianist

Yes.

beausoleil

Then you may also be doing without the like of...

Winston Churchill, George Frederick Handel, Lord Byron, Virginia Woolf, Edgar Allan Poe and Isaac Newton to name but a few. I'm afraid your eugenically tuned world is going to be a bit plodding.

http://www.mentaljokes.com/famous_manic.html

Totalitarianist

Of course. Ethics are purely a matter of opinion (and I cannot perceive any ethical problems with it). But as regards intelligence it is generally agreed upon that intelligence is a desirable trait. Whatever means for the proliferation of the individuals with this desirable trait cannot be considered in relation to the people in general, so long as it is generally agreed upon that the end (i.e. a higher rate more talented, able people) is agreed upon. Unacceptable abnormalities would be objectively and scientifically decided based on how they relate to defects in intelligence, which the generality agrees to be undesirable.

The mother's concerns are irrelevant, since collectively the feebleminded classes of people are more significant in relationship to the state, than one feebleminded person in relationship to its mother.

And that is the entire problem. Nothing is more significant than this.

Absurd. More children would result if it were a man with many wives.

There is no logical basis for that decision based on what has been agreed upon hitherto.

Too many feebleminded persons to be dealt with. It ought to done in one nation. For if otherwise it would be impossible.

And thank you, I do appreciate your comments.

Totalitarianist

But surely the result would be a desirable one. With less such mentally defective people, more money could be put into eugenics and education, thereby increasing the rate of brilliant minds. The whole thing is not damned by a few such cases.

Totalitarianist

5) Allow fathers to disown their sons. If, by means of the culture, "intellectuals" become the ideal sons, and if non-intellectual sons are born, the father will be inclined to disown him, sending him to the non-academic class. In turn, he will have less offspring than if he were intelligent. If this is encouraged, then the birth rate of non-intellectuals will further decrease. And it is quite common among cultures to do something along these lines, though in accordance with different ideal sons. There is therefore no doubt that it will work, although it will undoubtedly take a few generations to be fully executed unless it is deemed mandatory by law.

So simple and obvious that it is surprising to me that it is not required by law in our society. But I daresay that is what happens when slave morality is embraced by the generality.

Nikolai

Hey, glad to see you making posts outside of ~~Elsewhere~~. Have you ever read the book "Brave New World"? What do you think about the Utopian socciety portrayed in it?