Do you support eugenics?

It gives them a breeding advantage which translates into more surviving offspring even if some die. It's a numbers game.

 

Its directionless. There is no positive or negative to it, only survivability.

The thing all are presuming is that the differences between people is primarily genetic. Well, most studies show that IQ is about 50% nature and about 50% nurture. Not letting low IQ people breed probably isn't going to do much for the overall IQ of the population. The more humane solution is to help with nurture--or education.

 

More survivability is positive. Less survivability is negative.

1. IQ isn't something you learn, it is the ability to learn. Ergo, education is not going to be effective.
2. If IQ is 50% nature, that is still a tremendous amount, just as much as your alternative.
3. The "more humane" argument. We aren't talking about killing people. That would be inhumane. Having moronic children born from moronic parents, and suffering their whole lives because of it, is inhumane. All that I being propose is that we stop subsidizing what we DON'T want. Unlike the OP, I don't even propose subsidizing what we DO want (fit children born to fit parents), because my view is, if they're fit, they don't need subsidization.

 

I.Q. has been established to be 68% genetic. (Identical twin studies)

 

Please show the studies or a reputable article about them.

 

His number sounds more believable than your unsourced, way-too-tidy 50%. Either way, it's a huge amount, and is either the #1 factor, or tied for first.

 

At least the right-to-life and the right-to-choose people finally have a common adversary . . . . Gives a new, unique meaning to the term "pro-choice".

 

how are we going to force sterilize people?

put a gun to their head and say "let us perform this surgery or you get shot"???????????

there is no democratic way to do this, without threatening to kill those who disobey.

 

See my post #118 on this thread, including the link.

 

We don't have to support genetic anomalies. Why in the world would we spend million of dollars on someone with cystic fibrosis to get them to live long enough to breed and pass on their defect?

 

That's not the problem. The problem is intelligent people breeding dumbasses, for a reason that has nothing to do with genetics.

The possession of uniquely human faculties, the most elementary being self-awareness.

You haven't got a clue about either.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us why eugenics advocates don't meet all those criteria.

Actually, under an evolutionist paradigm, there's no reason to believe that is anything but a component of the natural process, which will eventually reveal the evolutionary superiority of the cockroach.

 

Could you ask me a pertinent question rather than smart-assed skirting around the subject please?

 

A court order?

 

dude, seriously this is nonsense.

No, no, and definitely NO!!!!!

 

What is?

 

the OP's idea about eugenics. More central planning nonsense, but on a genetic level.

 

I look at it like this - if you don't put down a mad dog it'll bite you; then it will go on and bite someone else, then someone else, and keep doing it until it's shot dead. Anyone here saying it shouldn't be shot dead?

 

I don't really know. I thought it likely, but it's more than possible. He frequents the race section, which gets moderated more than most areas (seemingly). I know his viewpoints are controversial, but he rarely resorts to name-calling without being provoked, and even then he is quite courteous with others.

As you suggested, it doesn't matter what he believes, here or offsite, as long as he isn't trolling--there is only one category of speech, and that is "free."

Fair enough, but I sure would like to know. I've received three minor infractions for name-calling, and I'd be curious to know what leads to someone being banned outright. I haven't bothered to familiarize myself with the process.

 

A disabled child does not a mad dog make.

 

That's a thought.

 

To answer the question; disease isn't the same as anti-social propensities, the former being unwanted and a misfortune of nature, the latter being misery-inflicting activity to others in the ignoring of civilized norms by brain-dead cretins. The former could one day be eradicated because of the onward progress of medical science, the latter will never be eradicated - on the contrary, such values (or lack of?) will be perpetuated by being passed on 'from father to son' and we'll always be cursed by it.

 

The thread has run long.
I believe that Eugenics will be lost on the current iteration of humanity. We are doomed to pretty much eradicate this version of our species through warfare.
The next version of human will understand that Eugenics will be mandatory to prevent future extinction.
You see, they will realize that our leaders have got to be the very best examples of our kind, and there is no way to do this but through breeding.

 

There are quite a few highly intelligent psychopaths out there. In fact, I've personally known quite a few psychopaths with superior IQ's, and I have two friends who are psychopaths. When I was in juve, my best friend was a psychopath, and I had a great deal of respect for his intelligence and common sense--far more than I do for most of the posters on here. Moderate psychopathy is actually very important for leading during tough times when difficult decisions need to be made. Psychopaths are often able to make more rational decisions under pressure than those who are overly emotional, or even typical. Many psychopaths have been great leaders due to superior leadership skills and the ability to make hard decisions. For a contemporary example, I submit Henry Kissinger.

 

Eugenics. Quite a controversial question, with a numerous number of ways a person could go. On one hand, I consider myself a Humanist by trade. All humans should be given the opportunity to live, but not just to live but to thrive and excel. Then on the other hand, I consider myself an intellectual who realizes that most people won't realize their potential. Some will live mediocre, meaningless lives(Sorry to put it that way, but working 9 X 5, raising a kid and dying isn't my idea of living.)

Others will still live lesser lives than that(criminal activity. Again, no offense to anyone.) Only a select few will actually make their lives worthwhile. So I'm torn. The other thing is, for as much discrimination as I would apply in my "chosen ones", another person could well deem that I'm an undesirable. Would I want to open up a system that puts my own life in jeopardy, or the lives of my family on the whim of some narcissist politician/philosopher, etc?

I personally think that only those who clearly are retarded/severely damaged health(crippled, etc) are the ones who should be "culled" so to speak. They have no hope for recovery, and it's actually more merciful to put them to death than to suffer living.

To avoid the said government/philosophical power trip, I think the option of eugenics should be given to the parents. Eugenics, applied in a limited sense can be like assisted suicide(which I also support.)

 

In short, yes I'm for Eugenics. I'm also for what I call passive population control in that I would remove all warning labels from products like drain cleaner, bleach, etc. I'm also in favor of euthanasia or assisted suicide.