Re: Eugenics
[ QUOTE ]
I submit that this is total nonsense. While there are potential dangers with a poorly crafted eugenics program, it's trivial to think of an example where this isn't the case. For example, removing the bottom 50% (in terms of intelligence) of each ethnic group. IMO this would greatly benefit the human gene pool and the long term success of the human race, with few drawbacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the concept of wanting to exert influence on the human gene pool. That's consistent with wanting to have sex IMO. Where we probably disagree is the extent of the measures that should be taken to achieve such an aim.
My philosophy is that tinkering with natural processes is a very dangerous game, because of the extreme unpredictability of future consequences. So it should be done only slowly and with great care.
The maximum degree I would take it to is to try to create an environment in which intelligent people WANT to multiply and not-so-intelligent folks have all sorts of disincentives to do same.
The current system is obviously achieving the opposite, so basically that means it should be dismantled. If that means WW3 because the current human population is too dumb/ignorant to do it any other way, then so be it.
But simply sterilizing the bottom 50% in intelligence would likely backfire, ie. lead to war in which the outcome would be a system that's even more low IQ skewed than today (in terms of fertility, motivation to have kids, etc.).
I guess my point is that whatever you do, it needs the involvement of a large chunk of humanity (ie. a war), rather than just a small group of people conducting an experiment with ramifications that require IQs of 500 or more to predict.
|