Totalitarianist

Before we discuss the specified topic, please note that ethics are irrelevant. What we are concerned about is the probability of success regarding the form of eugenics as elaborated upon hereinafter. Questions that are apt to occur to an able mind, therefore, are ones such as the proceeding: Given the current condition of country A in which I presently reside, how ought the specified prerequisites to be met as appropriate to the desired execution of success of which you have here spoken in conjunction with the specified eugenics plan proposed therein? Would not it be more efficient, given the current condition or conditions of country A in which I presently reside, or any other country or society so far as that is concerned, to simply do y and neglect the proposed means to execute x, which would lead, in the end, to x, but without the aid of any form of eugenics?

First of all, the hereditability of feeblemindedness, insanity, and delinquency, and other like mental defects, is high; and of this few scientifically literate men deny. I will assume, therefore, the truth of such studies regarding the intelligence and the generality of mental defects of separated and nonseparated twins; adopted and nonadopted children; the 4000 diseases that are said to have a genetic cause, which includes such mental defects as schizophrenia (not wholly, in thise case, however), sociopathy, Downs syndrome, feeblemindedness and stupidity in general; moreover, the obvious genetic basis of genius and other like, desirable conditions. Since every man here will, unless he be mentally deficient, assume the obvious truthhood of these studies which all confirm the logicality and correctness of my position on eugenics, we may proceed, and henceforth assume it, upon purely rational, scientific grounds.

If we think about this logically, what harm could possibly result from the mere sterilisation of the feebleminded. (And by "feebleminded", I refer to people whose IQs are lower than 50--people who are not, for aught we know, even cognizant of their own existence.) And yet, as I above mentioned, ethics are irrelevant to the present issue. No one will deny that if one is sterilised, he or she, in all likelihood, will not have children? No one can possibly deny, then, that if all feebleminded people were sterilised, the procreation of feebleminded children will be lower, however slightly. Since feebleminded people are unlikely to engage in sexual intercourse anyway, this will hardly make a difference. But it is a step in the correct direction.

1) Allow abortion

In one study, the rate of juvenile delinquency decreased by as much as 20% after abortion was permitted for young would-be mothers. Studies show that younger mothers are more likely to bore rebellious children. The principal factor in determining this is quite manifestly the underdisciplinary environment of the teen in relationship to his young mother, and this has little to do with genetics; but it is still correct to permit abortion upon this ground alone. For delinquents are more likely to get involved in drugs, and have sexual intercourse at a younger than the average age. These children, in turn, are more likely to have feebleminded or generally mentally or physically defective children as a result of drug use during pregnancy. And this will continue, causing an infinity of other like problems.

2) Mandatory termination

Mandatory termination of physically abnormal babies, either in utero, or directly after birth.
Non-human animals terminate defective young all the time. Permitting this would be a step in the correct direction. And we must remember that deformed infants are very likely to be mentally deficient as well.

3) Sterilisation

Sterilisation of the insane and feebleminded classes of people.
Since the majority of these obviously have the specimen's genes as a principal determinatem, there is no doubt that this will help society as a whole. The less the percentage of feebleminded people, the higher the percentage of average intelligent people. The less insane people, the less insanity.

4) Polygamy

If the intelligent, academic people are permitted to have more wives, then they will have more children thereby, which will result in more intelligent people. The more distinguished you are as an academical person--stated in different words, the more brilliant you are--the more wives you are permitted to have. And we must moreover remember than intelligent people are more interested in university. The generality of able, intelligent people, therefore, will be found in universities. Each will be permitted to have more than one wife. The more brilliant, the more wives (and money).--All average people, generally labourers and non-academic people, will only be allowed to have one wife. And any intelligent person that has unintelligent parents (which sometimes does happen), will be by nature more interested in universities, will in all probablity enter one, and will have more wives thereby, depending upon his intelligence.

5) Constantly identify any groups that might hinder the intellectual progression of the race, and endeavour to sterilise them collectively (and with no racial bias).

Philosoft

Have fun in Gattaca, Trebax.

HeatherD

Seriously, do you have an argument here? You make it painfully clear that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be mentally deficient.

There is no discussion, you are just preaching.

tronvillain

Philosoft, let's not insult Gattaca by comparing it to Trebaxian ramblings.

Next time, be sure you know what a word means before you attempt to use it. Also, while I'm sure that you just love the way writing in such a verbose style makes you sound, it does not endear you to the rest of us. Try to live in the real world for a change.

Yes, "intelligence" appears to be quite heritable and there is a large genetic components to a variety of mental characteristics and disorders, but it does not appear to follow that one should endorse eugenics. I am afraid that we are not simply willing to assume it, so you will have to demonstrate it.

What harm could possibly result from the "mere" sterilization of the "feebleminded"? Perhaps nothing other than the tolerance of government imposing a medical procedure without consent, but that is enough for me to loathe the idea.

Well, I am certainly pro-abortion, so I have no quarrel with this idea.

If it pleases someone to bear and raise an "abnormal" infant, that is their business. Exactly how does it benefit society to interfere with their decision?

Is there in fact no doubt that this will help society as a whole? I have doubt. At most I might consider some mandatory birth control and licensing scheme, but I have doubts about even that. I am simply not sure that the benefits of such a scheme are worth what it would make us into.

It is revealing that you do not mention the possibility of wives having more than one husband under such a scheme. Apparently it is impossible for a mere woman to be a brilliant academic. I have no problem with polygamy as marriage is simply a type of legal contract between individuals, but such a scheme is ridiculous. Let me guess - horny teenager without good looks, athletic ability, or social skills?

Exactly what race would that be then? I think I can guess...

wade-w

Maybe we should select for the ability to write clearly. Those who are addicted to run on sentences and archaic phrasing will be permanently sterilized.

Herman Hedning

Hey Trebax, that is all well and good, but your more wifes to the intelligent scheme has a couple of shortcomings. These academic blokes you talk about, don't you think their important academic work would suffer from them having several wifes? I mean, isn't it hard enough to remember birthdays, anniversarys and whatnot for one wife already? And think of the poor man being constantly subjected to the mood swings of a whole bunch of women. Nah, it won't work. Besides, what if he doen't like children?

Also, as was pointed out in a prevous post, what abaot the smart women? It won't help if they have several men, they will not produce more children anyways.

No, we need to go the whole way here. We need to mandate that the clever academic men and women donate sperm and ova regularly, and that the unsmart common people be inseminated so they'll bear smarter offspring. These children can then be raised by the state so that their superior abilities can be developed to the fullest. Sounds tempting, doesn't it?

Disclaimer: I don't really endorse this scheme! It's just for arguments sake.

AtomSmasher

I'm laughing my ass off, really. It's Brilliant!

Totalitarianist

Thankfully, there was no run on sentences or archaic phrasing in my post. Your reading comprehension is simply unsatisfactory.

Totalitarianist

I know what the word means. That was simply a mistake. It is in fact a common error. But appealing to the generality does not alter the fact that it was indeed an error. However, one's mind may be influenced by the errors of others, especially when those with whom he is communicating are members of an internet forum, and are thereby to a significant degree inattentive of their speech, using a breed of careless, everyday language -- which is one area in which both the language of the vulgar and that of myself is similar. For I invariably endeavour to employ a like breed of careless yet precise, everyday language. And of this no man can entertain a doubt.

[/quote]Also, while I'm sure that you just love the way writing in such a verbose style makes you sound, it does not endear you to the rest of us. Try to live in the real world for a change.[/quote]

I do not write verbosely. My language is precise and therefore clear. Length is often increased by precision.

If improving the race is desirable, then we ought to endorse eugenics.

That causes no harm. A government that does that is a benefactor of humanity.

Their decision is often the incorrect one. I do not believe that it is their business; it is the business of the state, since the feebleminded classes of people do collectively influence the state more than members of the feebleminded class individually influences their parents. The whole is greater and more important than insignificant, expendable parts. The state is the whole, and each person functions as a part for the good of the whole. If one of the parts does not (such as a feebleminded thing) function for the greater good, it is defective. But such parts are individually insignificant, and can be disposed of without any degree of disgust amongst the people. Collectively, however, they are significant and undesirable.

If we want less insanity, we want less of the insane. If we want less stupidity, we want less of the stupid. If we want less moral turpitude, we want less of the immoral (rebellious persons).
Yes, for if the birth rate of the stupid decreases, the rate of stupidity amongst the people will likewise decrease. If the birth rate of the able and intelligent were to increase, the rate of talent and intelligence amonst the people will increase.


Good looks and social skills are desirable.

I would be inclined to say the English. However, I will say the human race, or the members of whatever nation is or is in the process of being benefited by eugenics.

frostymama

Aside from my finding it repulsive... the problem is deciding who is "physically abnormal" enough for termination. If a person has a mild problem but is still fully capable to function society do you still kill them? What if it is easily correctable?

Would you kill fat people? People with glasses? Sterilize people who have a short bout with depression?