Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Totalitarianist · 12-02-2002, 07:49 AM

From <a href="http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mission.html" target="_blank">this</a> website:

Quote:

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any appreciable decline is synonymous with an increase in the collective "misery quotient."

Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above.

Please, do express your skepticism. I personally agree with eugenics; I therefore suffer from the confirmation bias, and I am consequently less likely to see any problems with it. The one thing that I cannot comprehend is people's general unwillingness to except the truth that genetics is the principal factor in determining one's intelligence. It may seem contrary to common sense, but the scientific evidence is overwhelming

Other interesting articles from the same website:

<a href="http://www.eugenics.net/papers/murray.html" target="_blank">IQ Will Put You In Your Place</a>
<a href="http://www.eugenics.net/papers/miller1.html" target="_blank">Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run</a>
<a href="http://www.eugenics.net/papers/gw001.html" target="_blank">Whatever Happened to Eugenics?</a>
<a href="http://www.eugenics.net/papers/nolib.html" target="_blank">The New Enemies</a>
<a href="http://www.eugenics.net/index2.html" target="_blank">Future Generations (Table of Contents)</a>

Demosthenes · 12-02-2002, 10:16 AM

Eugenics is a fascinating concept, unfortunately, it has been highly ambused in the past, most especially by the Nazis. I do support eugenics for improving the humanity overall, but however, I'm against government imposed or sponsored eugenics. As per to my libertarian outlook, I feel that all eugenics should be private and supervised by each individual, with minimal government interference.

Eugenics becomes dangerous when it falls into the hands of a powerful party intent on imposing its idea of "humanity" on the rest of the population. Eugenics in the hands of individuals does have some dangers, especially possible fragmentation as each person bring to fruit his own idea of a human being, though some would argue that it's not fragmentation, but rather diversity. Probably it would be necessary to establish rules to ensure that eugenics is to be used only positively, aka, increasing intelligence, physical attributes and so, instead of other way such as breeding dumb, "Gamma" workers to do the menial tasks which by then probably should already have been done by automated machinery.

tronvillain · 12-02-2002, 10:33 AM

It is not clear to me that the stupidest people are having the most children, and even if they are, it is not clear to me that this is going to have a significant impact any time soon. Besides, I suspect voluntary genetic engineering of children by parents for intelligence will eliminate the problem, if it in fact exists.

Still, basic eugenics wouldn't necessarily be all that difficult - mandatory birth control combined with increasingly strict standards to be elligible for first, second, third child and so on, combined with incentives for those who meet the standards to do so.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

fando · 12-02-2002, 11:35 AM

It's easy to speak of solutions, but what is the problem exactly? Until we have a firm understanding of what intelligence is and how it develops, I wouldn not support Eugenics. Without a firm idea of the goal, things like racism can slip in easily.

Vesica · 12-02-2002, 11:44 AM

Perhaps if specific kinds of intelligence were assessed? Like a test to see if potential breeders had enough common sense to care for the child they want to create?

*True or False: It is okay to shake a baby.
*True or False: Babies are a lot like puppies; if they pee on the rug, I can kick them out.
*True or False: A two year old is able to stay home alone for any period of time.
Etc.

beausoleil · 12-02-2002, 02:05 PM

A small shift in the average makes a big difference in the tails of a bell-shaped distribution. (from the website quoted at the beginning)

I guess these guys aren't going to be allowed to breed in their bright new tomorrow, and a good thing too.

fando · 12-02-2002, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesica:
<strong>Perhaps if specific kinds of intelligence were assessed? Like a test to see if potential breeders had enough common sense to care for the child they want to create?</strong>

Not enough. I know socially inept people who don't have the slightest clue how to care for an infant, yet they are among the most brilliant players in science. If ad-hoc common sense things like this are to be used to filter out those deemed 'unviable,' then we will suffer an atrophy in the numbers of gifted and quirky people in the future. If subjective guidelines ever play a role in Eugenics, it is bunk and prone to manipulation.

Edit: damn typos

maybe I should willingly submit to eugenics -- our future will be less dyslexic

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: fando ]</p>

CALDONIA · 12-02-2002, 02:22 PM

I think that promotion of common sense, education, and critical thinking can achieve what eugenics seeks to create. These are beneficial to individuals and society no matter level of intelligence. Then there is the problem of who decides what genes are "good."

Amen-Moses · 12-02-2002, 02:28 PM

One of the first Sumerian tablets (circa 3000 BC) to be translated was from a school teacher to the state school system complaining that the latest bunch of students were lazy and stupid.

Since then we have of course invented math, science and put man on the moon.

Go figure!

Amen-Moses

RoddyM · 12-02-2002, 02:31 PM

I guess it seems as though a welfare state might support the proliferation of inferior genes in the pool.

It depends on what kind of a bigot you are whether this is a problem or not. You don't have to swim in the peasants' pool, for one thing they always piss in it.

The author of one of the linked articles seems to be saying that poor people have inferior genetics and that these are phenotyped as alcoholism, criminality etc.

Here's a generality but I think it is true and more useful than anything written on that site:

In general the poor resent the rich and the rich are disgusted by the poor.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-02-2002, 10:16 AM	#2
Demosthenes Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: a speck of dirt Posts: 2,510	Eugenics is a fascinating concept, unfortunately, it has been highly ambused in the past, most especially by the Nazis. I do support eugenics for improving the humanity overall, but however, I'm against government imposed or sponsored eugenics. As per to my libertarian outlook, I feel that all eugenics should be private and supervised by each individual, with minimal government interference. Eugenics becomes dangerous when it falls into the hands of a powerful party intent on imposing its idea of "humanity" on the rest of the population. Eugenics in the hands of individuals does have some dangers, especially possible fragmentation as each person bring to fruit his own idea of a human being, though some would argue that it's not fragmentation, but rather diversity. Probably it would be necessary to establish rules to ensure that eugenics is to be used only positively, aka, increasing intelligence, physical attributes and so, instead of other way such as breeding dumb, "Gamma" workers to do the menial tasks which by then probably should already have been done by automated machinery.

12-02-2002, 10:33 AM	#3
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	It is not clear to me that the stupidest people are having the most children, and even if they are, it is not clear to me that this is going to have a significant impact any time soon. Besides, I suspect voluntary genetic engineering of children by parents for intelligence will eliminate the problem, if it in fact exists. Still, basic eugenics wouldn't necessarily be all that difficult - mandatory birth control combined with increasingly strict standards to be elligible for first, second, third child and so on, combined with incentives for those who meet the standards to do so. [ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

12-02-2002, 11:35 AM	#4
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	It's easy to speak of solutions, but what is the problem exactly? Until we have a firm understanding of what intelligence is and how it develops, I wouldn not support Eugenics. Without a firm idea of the goal, things like racism can slip in easily.

12-02-2002, 11:44 AM	#5
Vesica Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Sunny FLA USA Posts: 212	Perhaps if specific kinds of intelligence were assessed? Like a test to see if potential breeders had enough common sense to care for the child they want to create? True or False: It is okay to shake a baby. True or False: Babies are a lot like puppies; if they pee on the rug, I can kick them out. *True or False: A two year old is able to stay home alone for any period of time. Etc.

12-02-2002, 02:05 PM	#6
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	A small shift in the average makes a big difference in the tails of a bell-shaped distribution. (from the website quoted at the beginning) I guess these guys aren't going to be allowed to breed in their bright new tomorrow, and a good thing too.

12-02-2002, 02:22 PM	#8
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	I think that promotion of common sense, education, and critical thinking can achieve what eugenics seeks to create. These are beneficial to individuals and society no matter level of intelligence. Then there is the problem of who decides what genes are "good."

12-02-2002, 02:28 PM	#9
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	One of the first Sumerian tablets (circa 3000 BC) to be translated was from a school teacher to the state school system complaining that the latest bunch of students were lazy and stupid. Since then we have of course invented math, science and put man on the moon. Go figure! Amen-Moses

12-02-2002, 02:31 PM	#10
RoddyM Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 183	I guess it seems as though a welfare state might support the proliferation of inferior genes in the pool. It depends on what kind of a bigot you are whether this is a problem or not. You don't have to swim in the peasants' pool, for one thing they always piss in it. The author of one of the linked articles seems to be saying that poor people have inferior genetics and that these are phenotyped as alcoholism, criminality etc. Here's a generality but I think it is true and more useful than anything written on that site: In general the poor resent the rich and the rich are disgusted by the poor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.