Eugenics

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Well, on dictionary.com at least, most of the definitions seemed to agree with you, although there were a couple, at least, that could include what I have in mind and dont mandate sterilizations or a "birthing class."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are talking about voluntary screening, voluntary birth control etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I think those try to avoid the term 'eugenics'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Genetic engineering is probably better, but I basically consider "eugenics" to be sort of the goal-oriented process, wheras screening and counseling and genetic engineering are the tools used to bring it about.

I'm willing to admit this is non-standard and possibly entirely an incorrect usage though.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact: 0.2% of the population, 25% of the Nobel Prizes. Anyone care to explain why this isn't worth at least looking into?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're referencing the Jews, yes?

THey have a eugenics program already. Rabbis tend to be the most intelligent members of the tribe and they have much larger than average families (like 4x larger).

There's a really solid, historically proven method to bring down the wrath of the rest of the world. You succeed beyond your numbers as a discrete group. This the Jews have done, several times, in most any culture. How's that worked out so far?

Asians in general have succeeded beyond their numbers in America. Koreans became the most recent victims of a mini-Christalnacht in LA during the Rodney King riots.

Bottom line, success is suspect by the losers in life. If you want to do some genetic engineering, make the proles more like sheep but don't get rid of them. I'm not cutting my own lawn.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are talking about voluntary screening, voluntary birth control etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I think those try to avoid the term 'eugenics'.

[/ QUOTE ]

planned parenthood started out as a eugenics organization, google margaret sanger.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are talking about voluntary screening, voluntary birth control etc. I don't have a problem with that. But I think those try to avoid the term 'eugenics'.

[/ QUOTE ]

planned parenthood started out as a eugenics organization, google margaret sanger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, google what policies the american birth control league (sanger's organization) advocated. There are some bad stuff in there so thank heaven it has evolved. Sterilization of the feebleminded is my favorite. Sanger's personal views may have been more edible though.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dragonystic,

how about any trait having to be very widely accepted to be valued?

[/ QUOTE ]

still all sorts of problems would remain.

for one, lets say we all agreed that intelligence is good to select for. all we will in fact accomplish is changing the definitions for those we consider 'stupid' and 'smart.' Compared to our early ancestors, even the dumbest people today are relative genuises. If we bump up the overall intelligence through this selection process, there still will be bottom dwellers. They will just be smarter than our current bottom dwellers. And so groups of marginalized people will forever exist.

and still we would also have the problem of how desirable traits are selected for. there is no way around it, this would have to involve either a) stopping certain people from breeding or b) genetically altering the children born of 'undesirable' parents.

this alone is enough to disqualify eugenics as something a civilized society should consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad you couldn't have any kids then. I mean - it would worsen that society.

[madnak]

That's a different issue.

Also, the fact that I kick ass is independent from the fact that I'm a genius. Even if I were no longer a genius, I would still kick ass. Thus, my having kids is always +EV. Unless everyone else kicks even more ass than I do, in which case...

*head asplode!*

[tame_deuces]

It'll be one mean, intelligent and asskicking society. For what it's worth. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
The world would be a much better place if I represented the bottom run of intelligence. I would love to be the marginalized underclass in such a world. Ability isn't relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

you lack imagination if you believe this. the underclass in a society that promotes eugenics would likely be looked upon the way an untouchable is in a caste system. you'd lead the worst kind of life...assuming that they wouldnt just kill you when it became apparent at an early age that you were of lower intelligence.

and ability is relative (almost entirely so.) the things you could accomplish with a 150+ IQ in this society far outnumber what you could do in a world where 150+ was below average.