Notices
Results 1 to 86 of 86
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By Harold14370
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By forrest noble

Thread: Are eugenics back?

  1. #1 Are eugenics back? 
    New Member Socrates_drunk_the_conium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    2
    Hey guys

    I think that the last decade sciences such us Psychology, Neuroscience, Biology, Psychiatry and even sometimes Sociology(Sociobiology), who deal with the human behaviour incline to give more attention to the genetic basis or the biological structure of behaviours and traits that are considered dangerous by the society or government. For example I can not remember of how many fMRI or other brain study methods research results I have read, that discribe differences between brains of people that are considered ''normal'' and people diagnosed with pathopsychological conditions. Psychopaths, schizofrenics or even thieves and liers, rightwing or leftwing people have brains that somehow differ from the majority's(?) brain.

    Now I am not saying that the findings are false (although I believe some are..I don't believe in the hapiness gene..or in the smoking gene..) but I am concerned about how such science could influence politics in the future. How could we know if that differences are the couse of a disease or habit and not the RESULT of it? Could future societies imprison babies detected with a ''psychopath gene'' or a ''thief'' gene?

    I may be a little bit suspicius, but we pass through a changing era and I don't know if Science could once again be used as weapon against humanity.

    Whats your opinion?

    P.S Excuse me for my english


    Last edited by Socrates_drunk_the_conium; September 16th, 2012 at 07:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Science and technology can always be put to inappropriate, or unethical uses. Genetic analysis, brain scans and the like are no exception.

    I am less concerned about confusion arising between cause and effect. That is something that any good scientist will be well prepared to identify.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Eugenics never left.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    884
    Having been born just 2 miles from where Francis Galton, who coined the term Eugenics, was born in Sparkbrook Birmingham, England, I also have a certain interest in this topic. Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he drew inspiration from Origin of Species.
    Eugenics certainly is practiced today, though thankfully not in the way that it was interpreted by Hitler. I think Galton would have been horrified. But the idea of artificial selection to improve, limit and maintain the future of the human race cannot be ruled out.
    When I consider the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe I just wonder if they practice artificial selection among their own kind already. Maybe they are not held back by political and religious systems like we are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The phrase "not held back" implies you strongly favour the application of eugenic principles. While I can envisage as acceptable future direct manipulation of DNA to avoid undesirable traits in people, artificial selection is another matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The phrase "not held back" implies you strongly favour the application of eugenic principles.
    I'm definitely not in favour of eugenic principles, but I am in favour of any discussion about the future of the human race. Humans practice artificial selection on animals. What restricts them practicing artificial selection on themselves is that it takes some regime to direct the practice, and as was seen by Nazism it was totally unacceptable. In recent times some university students in order to finance their studies have donated sperm, until it had been pointed out that one day their offspring might demand money and inheritance. Artificially restricting family size might seem horrific to some religions, but it can lead to more money being spent on the child's education.
    Francis Galton gets the blame for eugenics ('well born'), whereas Darwin gets away with his ideas. I don't know if Hitler had heard of Dalton, but he had certainly heard of Darwin and the idea of survival of the fittest.
    Natural selection is a painfully slow process requiring millions of years. Artificial selection takes just a few generations. When you consider that the last 8 generations of mankind has done more damage to the world than the previous 80,000 then we have to take this into account.
    From Dalton's Essays in Eugenics:
    What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly man may do providently, quickly and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction; just as it becomes his duty to succour neighbours who suffer misfortune. The improvement of our stock seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt.
    Galton himself did not debate this because he was deaf. His further argument that criminals should not be allowed to breed was refuted by H.G. Wells, who held that a criminal might be the most energetic and intelligent member of his family.
    Galton pointed out that people who are born into the rules of their society live under them without objection, and that civilized races are subservient to religions, superstitions and authority. (Christians are always told that Jesus loves them).
    In addition to eugenics, Galton is given credit also for discovery of weather patterns and the anticyclone; he was the father of modern psychology; he anticipated Freud with the theory of the unconscious mind; he paralleled Mendel's work in genetics; he raised the nature - nurture problem; he pioneered the comparison of fingerprints.
    What a pity he is not given more credit. I remember a British politician remarking that it was a pity that the poor have more children than the rich, and yet he was wasn't hammered for his remark.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    To be honest, I personally am divided on the eugenics issue.

    To temporary move away from the whole ethical & moral aspects of it, and on what basis is the selection criteria made (if one is ever made); I am a little concerned about our ability to feed and sustain a ever growing global population with what I understand as limited resources the planet currently has. The average life expectancy is higher now compared to a century ago if I'm not mistaken.

    Is my concern unwarranted?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Artificially restricting family size might seem horrific to some religions, but it can lead to more money being spent on the child's education.
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1
    To be honest, I personally am divided on the eugenics issue.

    To temporary move away from the whole ethical & moral aspects of it, and on what basis is the selection criteria made (if one is ever made); I am a little concerned about our ability to feed and sustain a ever growing global population with what I understand as limited resources the planet currently has. The average life expectancy is higher now compared to a century ago if I'm not mistaken.

    Is my concern unwarranted?
    We seem to have moved from a discussion of eugenics to a discussion of population control. Do you feel these topics are related? Perhaps you think certain elements of the population should be controlled more than others?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    We seem to have moved from a discussion of eugenics to a discussion of population control
    My apologies. I was thinking about about Socrates's "... but I am concerned about how such science could influence politics in the future." in his opening post. I may have been unnecessarily(?) combined the two when I posted what I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Do you feel these topics are related?
    Yes. Only in the way that should the occasion ever arises, and if we ever have to make a choice on how to tackle population control on a global scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Perhaps you think certain elements of the population should be controlled more than others?
    Wow. I have entertained this question myself before on many occasions, and each time it comes down to who these "others" are and by which selection criteria they utilize. In a sense, I am not in favor of letting just any tom dick or harry make that decision. In fact, I'm not sure if I will ever be comfortable letting anyone else (but myself) make that kind of decisions.


    I suppose I'm just wondering what it would be like if the entire human race at some point in the future needed to make that choice. As I've said earlier, to temporary move away from the ethical & moral aspects of it, what would it be like, and what selection criteria would be present if the continuity of the human race was at stake or something along those lines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I suppose I'm just wondering what it would be like if the entire human race at some point in the future needed to make that choice. As I've said earlier, to temporary move away from the ethical & moral aspects of it, what would it be like, and what selection criteria would be present if the continuity of the human race was at stake or something along those lines.
    It's interesting that you think the human race would make that choice as a whole. You may be right, but I'm not sure it would go down very well with those persons having the genetic types chosen for extinction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's interesting that you think the human race would make that choice as a whole.
    I highly suspect they wouldn't as a whole. But IF they were forced to in some odd near-apocalyptic scenario, it will probably come down to die together or save a few for the continuation of the species. If the choice were the latter, I'm curious as to how the selection criteria will be like. The biological and/or intellectual fittest? Expertise (medical, engineering, etc.) orientated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You may be right, but I'm not sure it would go down very well with those persons having the genetic types chosen for extinction.
    Who would indeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    To be honest, I personally am divided on the eugenics issue.

    To temporary move away from the whole ethical & moral aspects of it, and on what basis is the selection criteria made (if one is ever made); I am a little concerned about our ability to feed and sustain a ever growing global population with what I understand as limited resources the planet currently has. The average life expectancy is higher now compared to a century ago if I'm not mistaken.

    Is my concern unwarranted?
    It seems to me we are technically able to profile every ones genetic make up and if I could somehow have access to that information I could make a better decision about who I might want to have children with. Would you consider that a form of eugenics? Maybe you would consider that unfair? When it comes to my future children I want them to be smart, good looking and not have any genetic defects and I don't care if that means I will discriminate against the genetically challenged individuals among us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    It seems to me we are technically able to profile every ones genetic make up and if I could somehow have access to that information I could make a better decision about who I might want to have children with. Would you consider that a form of eugenics?
    I will have to say yes, I will have consider it a form of eugenics. Eugenics; in the hopes that your future offspring will be better received in a society of our making. Out in the wilderness, I'm not sure if they will a have a better chance of survival though, but predators will probably welcome them.

    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Maybe you would consider that unfair?
    Unfair to whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    When it comes to my future children I want them to be smart, good looking and not have any genetic defects and I don't care if that means I will discriminate against the genetically challenged individuals among us.
    Noted on your desires for offspring with above average comeliness and lesser chance of physical & health disadvantages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    It seems to me we are technically able to profile every ones genetic make up and if I could somehow have access to that information I could make a better decision about who I might want to have children with. Would you consider that a form of eugenics?
    I will have to say yes, I will have consider it a form of eugenics. Eugenics; in the hopes that your future offspring will be better received in a society of our making. Out in the wilderness, I'm not sure if they will a have a better chance of survival though, but predators will probably welcome them.
    So you claim my having that information of others genetic make up would be a form of eugenics. But it wouldn't change the fact that I'm still in competition with others and if I have that information so will others. In the wild, the females decide who they will mate with and this sometimes leads to some very interesting evolutionary characteristics that don't enhance having a better chance of survival. Evolution is not just about survival but also about breeding the next generation.

    At the very least I would want to know about the possibility of passing on genetic hardships to my children.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    So you claim my having that information of others genetic make up would be a form of eugenics.
    Your question asked if I would consider it as eugenics. I've merely answered it to the best of my abilities based on what I understand eugenics to be. My reply was not meant to be judgmental of you as a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    But it wouldn't change the fact that I'm still in competition with others and if I have that information so will others. In the wild, the females decide who they will mate with and this sometimes leads to some very interesting evolutionary characteristics that don't enhance having a better chance of survival. Evolution is not just about survival but also about breeding the next generation.

    At the very least I would want to know about the possibility of passing on genetic hardships to my children.
    Ok...

    I'm not sure what is required of me to say about this portion of your post. Am I suppose to agree? Disagree? I honestly do not know how I am suppose to proceed here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    So you claim my having that information of others genetic make up would be a form of eugenics.
    Your question asked if I would consider it as eugenics. I've merely answered it to the best of my abilities based on what I understand eugenics to be. My reply was not meant to be judgmental of you as a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    But it wouldn't change the fact that I'm still in competition with others and if I have that information so will others. In the wild, the females decide who they will mate with and this sometimes leads to some very interesting evolutionary characteristics that don't enhance having a better chance of survival. Evolution is not just about survival but also about breeding the next generation.

    At the very least I would want to know about the possibility of passing on genetic hardships to my children.
    Ok...

    I'm not sure what is required of me to say about this portion of your post. Am I suppose to agree? Disagree? I honestly do not know how I am suppose to proceed here.
    I didn't take anything you said personally and I only used myself as an example for the question. I don't have any kids nor will I ever. I personally feel that if the same info is made available to everyone in the competitive selection process it can't be called eugenics.

    I would not be opposed to people who wanted to be a part of a eugenics program, say to produce geniuses, being allowed to do so.

    Why? Because you never know when some genius will help make our world a better place to live. Maybe even saving humans from going extinct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    I didn't take anything you said personally and I only used myself as an example for the question. I don't have any kids nor will I ever. I personally feel that if the same info is made available to everyone in the competitive selection process it can't be called eugenics.
    What definition of the word "eugenics" implies anything about providing information to anyone about a selection process?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What definition of the word "eugenics" implies anything about providing information to anyone about a selection process?
    I know you didn't imply anything like that, but I got the impression that Scoobydoo was being a little flexible in his definition. Probably my mistake though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    How many times have we seen the question''what is the purpose of life? The most basic answer is usually 'to survive'. Now, there has been a whole lot of evolving going on for the last 3 1/2 billion years to get to the point to where all of a sudden we can improve our chances. I'm not thinking of the individual or morality in this case but for the species as a whole. Hell, eugenics doesn't stop with just us, we should be able to engineer just what we need from Old Mother Nature. So I guess I'm asking if eugenics is the next step in survival, some degree of control over what essentially has been a long history of adaptation. It's a new time so maybe we finally get to make it work in our favor. Unfortunately there may be no guarantees but if it all fails, life moves on in its own extricable fashion. Somehow though, I think we are about to change all that.
    arKane likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    How many times have we seen the question''what is the purpose of life? The most basic answer is usually 'to survive'. Now, there has been a whole lot of evolving going on for the last 3 1/2 billion years to get to the point to where all of a sudden we can improve our chances. I'm not thinking of the individual or morality in this case but for the species as a whole.
    Why "as a whole"? Why should the individual be concerned about the whole species?
    Hell, eugenics doesn't stop with just us, we should be able to engineer just what we need from Old Mother Nature.
    That's just called selective breeding, not eugenics. It's been going on for thousands of years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Artificially restricting family size might seem horrific to some religions, but it can lead to more money being spent on the child's education.
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1
    To be honest, I personally am divided on the eugenics issue.

    To temporary move away from the whole ethical & moral aspects of it, and on what basis is the selection criteria made (if one is ever made); I am a little concerned about our ability to feed and sustain a ever growing global population with what I understand as limited resources the planet currently has. The average life expectancy is higher now compared to a century ago if I'm not mistaken.

    Is my concern unwarranted?
    We seem to have moved from a discussion of eugenics to a discussion of population control. Do you feel these topics are related? Perhaps you think certain elements of the population should be controlled more than others?
    Suppose there's a genetic component to the desire to breed like rabbits. If we don't artificially select against that gene, it will soon dominate, because the people possessed of it will be replicating in massive broods of poorly fed children, while the people not possessed of it will be breeding just barely at replacement level (as all human beings ought to.)

    The group that has smaller families will be able to educate their children better, giving them better opportunities to live better lives and have happier families, while the group that has bigger families will languish under poverty. Ideally that would affect their relative opportunity to reproduce also, but this is not what is observed. In our society there is no connection between the ability to provide for children and the ability to have them.
    arKane likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Eugenics would be wonderful, as long as I got to decide who was eugenically terminated.

    I got a little list. Of those who won't be missed.......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Why "as a whole"? Why should the individual be concerned about the whole species?
    Why not? It's all about survival. One person isn't much good in a controlled breeding environment.

    That's just called selective breeding, not eugenics. It's been going on for thousands of years.
    No I think if there's ever another round of controlled breeding then you might not even need to have sex. Care to donate some genetic material? Maybe I should open a DNA bank.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    We seem to have moved from a discussion of eugenics to a discussion of population control. Do you feel these topics are related? Perhaps you think certain elements of the population should be controlled more than others?
    The population of China is about 1/4 of the world's population and India is about 1/6, with both growing. Human populations do not appear now to follow the Malthus idea of animal populations being restricted by their food supply, and yet no so along ago humans were subject to starvation.
    With the increase in humans comes the increase in machines. In the last few decades humans have been dumbed down somewhat, starting to think less while machines have been doing the work of analyzing and processing, to a point where the really great thinkers of this world seem to have disappeared. I don't think England will ever again produce a Darwin, or a Galton, or a Newton, or a Dirac.
    We might be forced into artificial selection by the power of the machines in some sort of sci-fi scenario, in order to compete with the machines, and to restrict the global population for the future of mankind. When I see and hear of young overqualified people doing the most menial jobs today, which certainly didn't used to be the case, then I wonder if some sort of process hasn't already started.
    Last edited by ox; September 26th, 2012 at 05:32 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    I don't think England will ever again produce a Darwin, or a Galton, or a Newton, or a Dirac.
    We might be forced into artificial selection by the power of the machines in some sort of sci-fi scenario, in order to compete with the machines, and to restrict the global population for the future of mankind. When I see and hear of young overqualified people doing the most menial jobs today, which certainly didn't used to be the case, then I wonder if some sort of process hasn't already started.
    I don't get what you are proposing. Do we need to breed for higher intelligence to get more Newtons and Diracs or do we need to breed for lower intelligence to get less overqualified workers?
    JoshuaL likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    In the last few decades humans have been dumbed down somewhat, starting to think less while machines have been doing the work of analyzing and processing, to a point where the really great thinkers of this world seem to have disappeared. I don't think England will ever again produce a Darwin, or a Galton, or a Newton, or a Dirac. .
    Ever heard of the Flynn Effect, ox?

    Flynn effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I hate to have to tell you this, mate, but your statement about 'dumbing down' is the kind of ill informed uneducated and misleading material that does not belong on a science forum. Read the Flynn Effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    884
    I hate to have to tell you this, but I know for a fact that in the last 20 years the exams taken by young people in England have been so dumbed down that it has been almost impossible for them to fail. There is talk now of improving standards. I see in the news that prime minister David Cameron (educated at Eton and Oxford) could not answer simple history questions about his own country on American TV.
    When it comes to the Flynn Effect I do not doubt it findings, but I think it proves little other than people today are likely to be better educated because of the media, education providers and the internet.
    As far as artificial selection is concerned, is not the internet already weeding out those who do not have the ability to use it? People who are unable to use web dating and social networks might struggle to find partners.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The Flynn Effect is real. Each new generation is smarter than the previous. The effect is so strong that judges in the USA, who excuse murderers from the death penalty if they are below a certain IQ, are being told by psychologists that the old IQ standard is now quite out of date, and they have to change the standard to continue to include genuinely intellectually disabled people in the exclusion zone.

    The reason for increasing IQ's is controversial, but is probably related to the fact that children today are exposed to intellectually challenging abstractions far more than previous generations. Increasing use of such things as iPads will continue this trend.

    So, while education standards will always be a topic for discussion and renewal, overall there is no "dumbing down". The reverse is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The reason for increasing IQ's is controversial, but is probably related to the fact that children today are exposed to intellectually challenging abstractions far more than previous generations. Increasing use of such things as iPads will continue this trend.


    Yes. Also, early c
    hildhood intervention to help families, reduce abuse, and catch and help with developmental problems, improved nutrition, as well as abortion of babies with known severe disabilities.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Yes. Also, early childhood intervention to help families, reduce abuse, and catch and help with developmental problems, improved nutrition, as well as abortion of babies with known severe disabilities.
    Yes, and don't forget compulsory sterilisation for for all inferiors, to include criminals, the insane, homosexuals and communists. The world will be a better place! But hold on, wasn't this practised in America (USA - the first eugenics nation, as compared with England - the first industrial nation) in 31 states in the early twentieth century? There are times when being human evokes such a deep sense of shame and regret. It fails because as humans we have a guilty conscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Yes. Also, early childhood intervention to help families, reduce abuse, and catch and help with developmental problems, improved nutrition, as well as abortion of babies with known severe disabilities.
    Yes, and don't forget compulsory sterilisation for for all inferiors, to include criminals, the insane, homosexuals and communists. The world will be a better place! But hold on, wasn't this practised in America (USA - the first eugenics nation, as compared with England - the first industrial nation) in 31 states in the early twentieth century? There are times when being human evokes such a deep sense of shame and regret. It fails because as humans we have a guilty conscience.
    Compulsory sterilization for all inferiors in 31 states. What in the hell are you talking about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I think they were two separate thoughts. I believe he was suggesting the mandatory sterilization of unfavorables (akin to Hitler's ideas of social engineering) and also giving a nod to the International Eugenics Congresses in the early 20th century. Though I'm not sure what the hint toward America was all about being that the first congress was held in London...

    EDIT: I also feel compelled to note that my wonderful home state of Indiana led the charge to develop racial purity through controlled sterilization and reproduction....yay?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Yes, and don't forget compulsory sterilisation for for all inferiors, to include criminals, the insane, homosexuals and communists. The world will be a better place! But hold on, wasn't this practised in America (USA - the first eugenics nation, as compared with England - the first industrial nation) in 31 states in the early twentieth century? There are times when being human evokes such a deep sense of shame and regret. It fails because as humans we have a guilty conscience.
    Yikes, had forgotten we used to do that also; yes, it contributed as well.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Yes, and don't forget compulsory sterilisation for for all inferiors, to include criminals, the insane, homosexuals and communists. The world will be a better place! But hold on, wasn't this practised in America (USA - the first eugenics nation, as compared with England - the first industrial nation) in 31 states in the early twentieth century? There are times when being human evokes such a deep sense of shame and regret. It fails because as humans we have a guilty conscience.
    Yikes, had forgotten we used to do that also; yes, it contributed as well.
    Really? We used to sterilize the insane, communists, and homosexuals, did we? It contributed what to what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Really? We used to sterilize the insane, communists, and homosexuals, did we? It contributed what to what?
    Yes, the US sterilized tens of thousands of people during the mid 20th century. The largest group that OX said but didn't specify were the mentally retarded which would have contributed to the Flynn effect; criminal sterilizations would also capture lower IQ groups. Of course there's no correlation between homosexuals and communist with intelligence. Most states were reversing their policies by the 60s-70s.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Really? We used to sterilize the insane, communists, and homosexuals, did we? It contributed what to what?
    Yes, the US sterilized tens of thousands of people during the mid 20th century. The largest group that OX said but didn't specify were the mentally retarded which would have contributed to the Flynn effect; criminal sterilizations would also capture lower IQ groups. Of course there's no correlation between homosexuals and communist with intelligence. Most states were reversing their policies by the 60s-70s.
    All right. Which states had laws about sterilizing homosexuals and communists? You really think sterilization of a few thousand mentally retarded people affected the overall intelligence of the population???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    You really think sterilization of a few thousand mentally retarded people affected the overall intelligence of the population???
    It wasn't a few thousand.... there were more than 20,000 in California alone which given the average family size at that time probably prevented more than 50,000-100,000 people from being born--many of which would have been genetically predisposed to lower IQ and tending to be exposed to with worse developmental environments because there were few social nets back then.

    STERILIZED in the Name of Public Health
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    You really think sterilization of a few thousand mentally retarded people affected the overall intelligence of the population???
    It wasn't a few thousand.... there were more than 20,000 in California alone which given the average family size at that time probably prevented more than 50,000-100,000 people from being born--many of which would have been genetically predisposed to lower IQ and tending to be exposed to with worse developmental environments because there were few social nets back then.

    STERILIZED in the Name of Public Health
    20,000 people in 70 years is really not very many, and how many retarded people raise normal sized families anyway. I do not find the idea to be at all credible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Would this have happened at the same time as the introduction of the contraceptive pill? The reason I ask is I watched a tv program where there were theories being expounded that showed a proportional drop in crime rates 20 years on from the introduction of the first contraceptive pills, and this drop was mirrored at the same time intervals in different parts of the US depending when the pill was introduced in that particular state or city. The theory was that the products of unwanted births were less likely to be well educated and more likely to become involved with crime as a result of the parents not being ready for or wanting the child, now given that IQ tests usually showed better results for the well educated I just wondered if this contraception theory might have also played a role here.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Would this have happened at the same time as the introduction of the contraceptive pill? The reason I ask is I watched a tv program where there were theories being expounded that showed a proportional drop in crime rates 20 years on from the introduction of the first contraceptive pills, and this drop was mirrored at the same time intervals in different parts of the US depending when the pill was introduced in that particular state or city. The theory was that the products of unwanted births were less likely to be well educated and more likely to become involved with crime as a result of the parents not being ready for or wanting the child, now given that IQ tests usually showed better results for the well educated I just wondered if this contraception theory might have also played a role here.
    Well, there's been close to a million abortions in the US this year alone, and the government will supply poor people with free birth control, so maybe that's having some effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    As you well know mid-20th century American families where pretty large, peaking at 3.7 children for an average.
    Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Family Planning

    As also know there was a negative correlation between IQ and family size.
    http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1928-00371-001

    Contemporary research might provide additional incite to some of the reasons for this...large family have a fewer resources to go around (actual starvation was pretty common in rural states until the early 70s) and we also know large families have more abuse per child, that's strongly linked to developmental problems including reduced intelligence.
    --
    Considering the multiple generations this spanned the 50,000 to 100,00 fewer children, a sizable number who would have been both genetically and environmentally tending towards lower intelligence is probably a conservative figure. And that's just in one state. When added up across the 30 or so states that had similar programs, the figures are probably well over half a million--enough to show up in population averages. I'm in no way suggesting this is the main cause for the Flynn effect though--it's just small part.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Well, there's been close to a million abortions in the US this year alone, and the government will supply poor people with free birth control, so maybe that's having some effect.
    I would certainly prefer the contraception idea to that of the abortions, but even that is better than having whole armies of basically unwanted children, it would give potential parents more time to grow up and have planned children when they are ready and able to properly support them. So I think it's good that it's having some effect.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    A
    Considering the multiple generations this spanned the 50,000 to 100,00 fewer children, a sizable number who would have been both genetically and environmentally tending towards lower intelligence is probably a conservative figure. And that's just in one state. When added up across the 30 or so states that had similar programs, the figures are probably well over half a million--enough to show up in population averages. I'm in no way suggesting this is the main cause for the Flynn effect though--it's just small part.
    Well though it may be good for IQ's it still seems morally wrong to me to sterilize people.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Well though it may be good for IQ's it still seems morally wrong to me to sterilize people.
    I do as well, just as much as I think it's morally wrong to force women to have kids they don't want--which we also know it is a drag on average intelligence.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The report I saw related to the introduction of abortions. 20 years later saw a substantial fall in violent crimes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    The report I saw related to the introduction of abortions. 20 years later saw a substantial fall in violent crimes.
    Commonly cited data. Not particularly surprising either. We're all products of our environments and growing up in an environment where you aren't wanted or cared-for seems to naturally suggest deviant behavior later in life.

    The myopic nature of the human race never ceases to amaze me.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Some might see the abortion in itself as a violent crime. It's all in your point of view.

    Would eugenics be a good thing if it reduced the rate of violent crime? Maybe abortion could be viewed as a form of eugenics. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was also a proponent of eugenics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    At what point is a fetus a citizen protected by our constitution? At what point does it have rights?

    Why is not the murder of any living being considered a crime? I can kill a deer for fun, but a cluster of cells with no relationship to an aware life form, whether the potential for a human life form or not, is an act worthy of condemnation?

    Comparing abortion to eugenics is a decision of questionable rationale.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    I wonder if sterilization was made a penalty for being a gang member. Would it help clear up the problem?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    I wonder if sterilization was made a penalty for being a gang member. Would it help clear up the problem?
    Is this working under the assumption that gang members would like to start a family some day? Is the moral fallout from eugenics worth the chance that it could stem violent crime?

    I'm all for birth control, but using it as a punishment is outside my comfort zone.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    I wonder if sterilization was made a penalty for being a gang member. Would it help clear up the problem?
    Is this working under the assumption that gang members would like to start a family some day? Is the moral fallout from eugenics worth the chance that it could stem violent crime?

    I'm all for birth control, but using it as a punishment is outside my comfort zone.
    I don't know about them starting families, but they do have kids with rotten low life parents. I am a firm believer that every child has a right to a good start in life and I believe the government should have a vaccine that prevents both men and women from having kids until they meet minimum requirements. After all they won't license you to drive a car until you can prove a minimum level of knowledge and ability, and yet anyone that is capable of screwing around can bring a new life into the world ready or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Taking away someone's reproductive right for gang member seems extreme and doesn't do anything besides punish them. It doesn't keep them from committing more crimes unless you're suggesting castration may have positive affects on their personality. Turning criminals into eunuchs is not exactly a new idea either.

    Legislating the right to reproduce is social engineering and, quite frankly, a bit terrifying.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Can crimes committed based on a certain ideology be eradicated by removing reproductive rights? Suicide bombers and martyrs comes to mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Taking away someone's reproductive right for gang member seems extreme and doesn't do anything besides punish them. It doesn't keep them from committing more crimes unless you're suggesting castration may have positive affects on their personality. Turning criminals into eunuchs is not exactly a new idea either.

    Legislating the right to reproduce is social engineering and, quite frankly, a bit terrifying.
    Does that mean, you consider requiring people to meet minimum requirements before they are allowed to have children is somehow the wrong thing to do?

    It's not like you are telling anyone they can't have kids. Because if you want kids, meeting those requirements won't be a problem. But I guess if you are a gang member it might be. To bad, but if you can't be a knowledgeable parent why should you be allowed to breed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    But I guess if you are a gang member it might be. To bad, but if you can't be a knowledgeable parent why should you be allowed to breed?
    Easy solution.
    All male gang members are required to be surgically castrated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    But I guess if you are a gang member it might be. To bad, but if you can't be a knowledgeable parent why should you be allowed to breed?
    Easy solution.
    All male gang members are required to be surgically castrated.
    I like the idea of a reversible vaccination. Castration is so permanent and there's bound to be some mistakes made. How would you feel if you were that mistake? After the lawsuit you will be able to adopt, but your bloodline is done which would make you an evolutionary loser.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    arKane

    I was being ironic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    arKane

    I was being ironic.
    Dramatic I know. it's just so many people seem to think just because you can have kids that it's an individual right, and that's just plain BS. Every kid has the right to be born to parents that want him/her and that are ready to give that child a good start in life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    arKane

    I was being ironic.
    Dramatic I know. it's just so many people seem to think just because you can have kids that it's an individual right, and that's just plain BS. Every kid has the right to be born to parents that want him/her and that are ready to give that child a good start in life.
    And just because every individual has a heart beat, they think that is somehow their right.

    An embryo has no rights. It is neither human nor a citizen and it should not be prioritized over the rights of the mother. I know it sounds horribly cold, but it is logical.
    scoobydoo1 and JoshuaL like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    arKane

    I was being ironic.
    Dramatic I know. it's just so many people seem to think just because you can have kids that it's an individual right, and that's just plain BS. Every kid has the right to be born to parents that want him/her and that are ready to give that child a good start in life.
    And just because every individual has a heart beat, they think that is somehow their right.

    An embryo has no rights. It is neither human nor a citizen and it should not be prioritized over the rights of the mother. I know it sounds horribly cold, but it is logical.
    It doesn't sound cold at all. If that mother has other children, her loss will be a major traumatic event in their lives. The embryo which doesn't yet have a life needs to be secondary to the life of the mother in every case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I would certainly prefer the contraception idea to that of the abortions, but even that is better than having whole armies of basically unwanted children, it would give potential parents more time to grow up and have planned children when they are ready and able to properly support them. So I think it's good that it's having some effect.
    I don't know if Francis Galton would have approved of either contraception or abortion, at least not on the basis of a lifestyle choice. But no doubt he would have been in favour of smaller families because more could be spent on a child's education. In his day there were large families but child mortality was also high. He had the advantage of living in a non catholic country and was freely able to discuss the idea of parents being accountable for their reproduction.
    It seems to me ignoble that a man should be such a coward as to hesitate to inform himself fully of his hereditary liabilities, and unfair that a parent should deliberately refuse to register such family hereditary facts as may serve to direct the future of his children, and which they may hereafter be very desirous of knowing. Parents may refrain from doing so through kind motives; but there is no real kindness in the end.
    There again, he wouldn't have known of the great advances in medicine to come.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    arKane

    I was being ironic.
    Dramatic I know. it's just so many people seem to think just because you can have kids that it's an individual right, and that's just plain BS. Every kid has the right to be born to parents that want him/her and that are ready to give that child a good start in life.
    Does this mean you would be in favor of forced sterilization of the mentally disabled?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Junior JoshuaL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    268
    Huh, surprised no one has mentioned Cyprus yet. Incidents of thalassemia (inherited disorder causing malformed hemoglobin) were extremely common up to the 70s, at which point they instituted mandatory screening for both partners before marriage (the trait is recessive). In just a couple generations they completely wiped out the disease. But here's the thing: only the screening itself was mandatory. You are forced to KNOW, but not to make any particular decision. Though if you do get pregnant and have a test confirming thalassemia, cost of termination of the pregnancy is covered by the state. This is particularly interesting because Cyprus is an extremely religious country, and even religious authorities who otherwise disapprove of abortion in this case make an exception of their disapproval. Or, as stated in an article by Ruth Cowen in 2009: "religious authorities with profound objections to abortion can balance that moral precept against others, such as the imperative to reduce suffering that sometimes conflict with it" .

    Edit: OH, I didn't say this explicitly, but nearly everyone identified as positive chooses not to reproduce at all, and everyone with an embryo identified as positive chooses to terminate. This fits the definition of eugenics, just not in the demonized form of the word most people mean it today.
    "The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is... doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting sh*t dead wrong."

    Take two of these and call me in the morning
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Having been born just 2 miles from where Francis Galton, who coined the term Eugenics, was born in Sparkbrook Birmingham, England, I also have a certain interest in this topic. Galton was a cousin of Charles Darwin and he drew inspiration from Origin of Species.
    Eugenics certainly is practiced today, though thankfully not in the way that it was interpreted by Hitler. I think Galton would have been horrified. But the idea of artificial selection to improve, limit and maintain the future of the human race cannot be ruled out.
    When I consider the idea of alien life elsewhere in the universe I just wonder if they practice artificial selection among their own kind already. Maybe they are not held back by political and religious systems like we are.
    Ah Galton - the dear gentleman, if he can be called such, *effectively* suggested the annihilation of the Black African. (What he actually said was that the entire African continent should be absolutely and completely rid of Africans and thereafter, the continent should be filled with the conscientious Chinese). What a very nice man. (Nevertheless, he did come from the time period when scientific racism and whatnot was effectively normal and accepted.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    arKane

    I was being ironic.
    Dramatic I know. it's just so many people seem to think just because you can have kids that it's an individual right, and that's just plain BS. Every kid has the right to be born to parents that want him/her and that are ready to give that child a good start in life.
    Does this mean you would be in favor of forced sterilization of the mentally disabled?
    I'm for all people to be vaccinated against pregnancy while still children. When they are ready to have children and want children they apply for an application and prove they can meet the requirements for having children. Once they are approved they can get the vaccination reversed. For the record anyone wanting children should have no problem being approved. If a mentally disabled person can meet requirements and wants a child, I'm all for it.

    What would our society look like in one generation if every child born was a wanted child born to parents that could support him/her and had some certified parenting skills?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    If everyone is vaccinated against having a child, I want to be 20 years old again. With no risk of getting pregnant, just think how randy all those young women would be! I would get laid every night. Yippee.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    If everyone is vaccinated against having a child, I want to be 20 years old again. With no risk of getting pregnant, just think how randy all those young women would be! I would get laid every night. Yippee.
    Yep, that would be a game changer. Wanted children only please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Well I'm certainly not a fan of Eugenics, but (and here comes the but) if it gets to a point where successive generations are starting to become less and less inteligent then I would support a form of Eugenics as a preventitive measure, because given the choice of the two dystopian visions of the future represented in the movies Gattaca and Idiocracy, I would choose the Gattaca vision every time.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Actually Gattaca did not involve eugenics. It was through genetic manipulation of the early embryo before re-implantation. Eugenics involves either sterilisation or euthanasia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    author of Sex and Rank
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18
    From my book Sex and Rank:

    Eugenics is the science of improving human nature. After the experiments of the Nazis and others, it is a science that has fallen into official neglect.

    The pressure of social selection exists in every society, and in this respect any society is eugenic. Society as a eugenic machine always provides the best possibilities for procreation to some groups of people and the worst possibilities to others. Eugenics is banned simply as a word.

    Society may be so constructed that even ordinary male qualities are superfluous to requirements. This can be seen in such activities as collecting berries or carrying papers from one office to another. Together with the papers the males have to carry their own musculature, and it is heavy. More energy is lost in carrying one’s own weight than in carrying papers. Males are not energy-efficient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergei Morozov View Post
    Society may be so constructed that even ordinary male qualities are superfluous to requirements. This can be seen in such activities as collecting berries or carrying papers from one office to another. Together with the papers the males have to carry their own musculature, and it is heavy. More energy is lost in carrying one’s own weight than in carrying papers. Males are not energy-efficient.
    However males can carry more paper in a single trip thereby reducing the number of trips and the consequent expenditure of energy (and shoe leather).

    More seriously, most definitions of eugenics would include pronounced conscious intent in a breeding program. What you are describing is nothing more than standard natural and sexual selection. Calling it eugenics creates an unnecessary word for a category that already exists and eliminates a category that has value.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    ....Could future societies imprison babies detected with a ''psychopath gene'' or a ''thief'' gene?
    Forever in the future implies anything is possible, but eugenic gene therapy of some kind seems like a more likely treatment or control strategy for physical, mental, and psychological problems, especially with the consent of the individual

    Human eugenics could be considered very desirable when applied within a democratic and empathetic society and moral system.
    arKane likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    ....Could future societies imprison babies detected with a ''psychopath gene'' or a ''thief'' gene?
    Forever in the future implies anything is possible, but eugenic gene therapy of some kind seems like a more likely treatment or control strategy for physical, mental, and psychological problems, especially with the consent of the individual

    Human eugenics could be considered very desirable when applied within a democratic and empathetic society and moral system.
    Although this is a eugenics topic, I think the bigger question will revolve around genetics. I don't think humans need a bigger brain to become more intelligent. The current crop of geniuses are more intelligent without bigger brains. It must have something to do with how our brains are wired and this must have a genetic origin and as such should have a genetic solution.

    The question is, if you knew you could have a child with a guaranteed 150 IQ with a simple genetic procedure. Would you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    ....Could future societies imprison babies detected with a ''psychopath gene'' or a ''thief'' gene?
    Forever in the future implies anything is possible, but eugenic gene therapy of some kind seems like a more likely treatment or control strategy for physical, mental, and psychological problems, especially with the consent of the individual

    Human eugenics could be considered very desirable when applied within a democratic and empathetic society and moral system.
    Although this is a eugenics topic, I think the bigger question will revolve around genetics. I don't think humans need a bigger brain to become more intelligent. The current crop of geniuses are more intelligent without bigger brains. It must have something to do with how our brains are wired and this must have a genetic origin and as such should have a genetic solution.

    The question is, if you knew you could have a child with a guaranteed 150 IQ with a simple genetic procedure. Would you?
    If you are just talking about me the answer is yes. But do I think it's a great idea for humanity? it would probably take some time for me to give a well thought out opinion. Maybe a gradual increase in IQ over hundreds of years to an average IQ of 150 might be better.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 12th, 2012 at 01:04 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    If you are just talking about me the answer is yes. But do I think it's a great idea for humanity? it would probably take some time for me to give a well thought out opinion
    Actually yes to both. I used only one example, but there are so many ways genetics could improve our species I can't even begin to list them all here. But I like the upgrade of over all human intelligence very much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    author of Sex and Rank
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18
    [QUOTE=John Galt;365424]
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergei Morozov View Post
    More seriously, most definitions of eugenics would include pronounced conscious intent in a breeding program.
    Reproductive success is predetermined by social success.
    Social success is predetermined by laws.
    Laws are created by lawyer.

    lawyers write laws with conscious intent.

    So, reproductive success in society predeterminated by conscious intent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I started a longer refutation of your argument, but deleted it since there is single massive flaw which renders it as nonsense.

    Even if I were to concede that all, or most social success is constrained by laws (a highly dubious position) the point is that lawyers do not write laws with the conscious intent of of controlling human breeding. Indeed, lwayers don't write laws. Lawmakers do, whether they are legally elected representatives, or dictators, or whatever.

    Sorry, Sergei I find your ideas, at this point, to be rather silly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    author of Sex and Rank
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18
    The practical result of world-improving theories is consistently a formless and therefore historyless mass... All world-improvers and world citizens stand for fellaheen ideals whether they know it or not. Their success means the historical abdication of the nation in favour, not of everlasting peace, but of another nation...
    Is Spengler silly too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    If you are just talking about me the answer is yes. But do I think it's a great idea for humanity? it would probably take some time for me to give a well thought out opinion
    Actually yes to both. I used only one example, but there are so many ways genetics could improve our species I can't even begin to list them all here. But I like the upgrade of over all human intelligence very much.

    Regarding raising the mean intelligence of humanity by eugenics to IQ 150 in the future
    : Yes, I great potential future for humanity and I don't doubt that it will happen someday. One point of humor though, future geniuses won't all be as productive as Newton, Einstein, Franklin, Tesla, or bad evil geniuses like the fictional character Dr. Hannibal Lecter, some I believe will be more like the T.V. character Dr. Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang fame. Geniuses in general tend to be more eccentric but their egomania would seemingly be less prevalent if most everyone else was also of high/equal intelligence.
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 14th, 2012 at 05:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Actually Gattaca did not involve eugenics. It was through genetic manipulation of the early embryo before re-implantation. Eugenics involves either sterilisation or euthanasia.
    The film Gattaca is described as being driven by Liberal eugenics (Liberal eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which is not as harsh in it's ideological execution. This type of eugenics would certainly be eaiser to accept, but again unless it becomes absolutely necessary I think we could well do with out it.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    Regarding raising the mean intelligence of humanity by eugenics to IQ 150 in the future
    : Yes, I great potential future for humanity and I don't doubt that it will happen someday. One point of humor though, future geniuses won't all be as productive as Newton, Einstein, Franklin, Tesla, or bad evil geniuses like the fictional character Dr. Hannibal Lecter, some I believe will be more like the T.V. character Dr. Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang fame. Geniuses in general tend to be more eccentric but their egomania would seemingly be less prevalent if most everyone else was also of high/equal intelligence.
    The problem is anytime the average intellegence is raised it will become the new 100 on the IQ scale. All those higher intellegence humans won't even know they are 50 points higher than their recent ancessters. Not sure what that world will be like. Any guesses?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    Regarding raising the mean intelligence of humanity by eugenics to IQ 150 in the future
    : Yes, I great potential future for humanity and I don't doubt that it will happen someday. One point of humor though, future geniuses won't all be as productive as Newton, Einstein, Franklin, Tesla, or bad evil geniuses like the fictional character Dr. Hannibal Lecter, some I believe will be more like the T.V. character Dr. Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang fame. Geniuses in general tend to be more eccentric but their egomania would seemingly be less prevalent if most everyone else was also of high/equal intelligence.
    The problem is anytime the average intellegence is raised it will become the new 100 on the IQ scale. All those higher intellegence humans won't even know they are 50 points higher than their recent ancessters. Not sure what that world will be like. Any guesses?
    Well generally speaking evolution seems to provide for a suitable intelligence for our species, why do you really need to play around with it? Are we are becoming less smarter, do we really need to, at present, artifically boost IQ levels? I mean if we do, and the trend continues arn't we then in danger of creating a society of intellectuals and no one wanting or willing to do any form of manual work. I mean it's good to have intelligent people in society, but isn't it also good to have a good range of IQ's that is driven and governed by the way we actually live our lives. Again we could be in danger of creating a huge section of society that end up unsatisified with their lot because there arn't enough 'good' opportunities to go round. I just wonder, they say ignorance is bliss if it's pehaps sometimes better to leave some to there bliss, but hey just a thought.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    Regarding raising the mean intelligence of humanity by eugenics to IQ 150 in the future
    : Yes, I great potential future for humanity and I don't doubt that it will happen someday. One point of humor though, future geniuses won't all be as productive as Newton, Einstein, Franklin, Tesla, or bad evil geniuses like the fictional character Dr. Hannibal Lecter, some I believe will be more like the T.V. character Dr. Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang fame. Geniuses in general tend to be more eccentric but their egomania would seemingly be less prevalent if most everyone else was also of high/equal intelligence.
    The problem is anytime the average intelligence is raised it will become the new 100 on the IQ scale. All those higher intelligence humans won't even know they are 50 points higher than their recent ancestors. Not sure what that world will be like. Any guesses?
    Yes, it is a good question. Those that are ambitious will probably have a higher potential for success, and those that would rather indulge in hedonistic pursuits, would probably have better tools to take advantage of the system and live off the fat of the land There probably would be much more and efficient machines to do manufacturing and presently manual tasks, but those relatively uneducated will also probably have an easier time making a living due to the continued need for manual labor, construction, and the service industry.

    Evil villains trying to take advantage of a wealthier society in general, would probably be more prevalent, but I think unprincipled people in governmental positions would probably remain about the same percentage. That's my guess
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Well generally speaking evolution seems to provide for a suitable intelligence for our species, why do you really need to play around with it? Are we are becoming less smarter, do we really need to, at present, artifically boost IQ levels? I mean if we do, and the trend continues arn't we then in danger of creating a society of intellectuals and no one wanting or willing to do any form of manual work. I mean it's good to have intelligent people in society, but isn't it also good to have a good range of IQ's that is driven and governed by the way we actually live our lives. Again we could be in danger of creating a huge section of society that end up unsatisified with their lot because there arn't enough 'good' opportunities to go round. I just wonder, they say ignorance is bliss if it's pehaps sometimes better to leave some to there bliss, but hey just a thought.
    I think we do need to be smarter if were ever going to become a multi planet species. If we can't do that we are guaranteed to go extinct as a species. We may not have as much time as you might think, anyway it would be good if we don't drag out feet to much. Also, when you talk about ignorance, even smart people can be ignorant. Higher intelligence is no guarantee of anything, but it might just give us the edge we need.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Well generally speaking evolution seems to provide for a suitable intelligence for our species, why do you really need to play around with it? Are we are becoming less smarter, do we really need to, at present, artifically boost IQ levels? I mean if we do, and the trend continues arn't we then in danger of creating a society of intellectuals and no one wanting or willing to do any form of manual work. I mean it's good to have intelligent people in society, but isn't it also good to have a good range of IQ's that is driven and governed by the way we actually live our lives. Again we could be in danger of creating a huge section of society that end up unsatisified with their lot because there arn't enough 'good' opportunities to go round. I just wonder, they say ignorance is bliss if it's pehaps sometimes better to leave some to there bliss, but hey just a thought.
    I think we do need to be smarter if were ever going to become a multi planet species. If we can't do that we are guaranteed to go extinct as a species. We may not have as much time as you might think, anyway it would be good if we don't drag out feet to much. Also, when you talk about ignorance, even smart people can be ignorant. Higher intelligence is no guarantee of anything, but it might just give us the edge we need.
    I think when you put it like that it sounds reasonable, I think it's fine if people using and needing that level of intelligence. I just really think we are not ready for it yet, how many jobs really require a 150 IQ? Not really that many I can think of, I just don't like idea of factories filled with super smart people because I think it will lead to mass unhappiness and also there seems to be a trade off between intelligence and physical attributes, not to say that you can't be both fit and intelligent but as whole on balance societies most intelligent people are rarely sportsmen.

    If indeed we do get to a stage in our evolution where we can offer the majority of people a lifestyle and employment prospects that allow them to utilise a much higher average IQ whilst also offering living conditions that do not require being so physically active then I would think we would be ready, but I don't think we are there yet.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13
    There is a sort of vaccine to keep women from having kids: tell them cum has the taste of chocolate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Eugenics proves that science is evil!
    By John Galt in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: August 10th, 2012, 03:17 PM
  2. The ethics of Eugenics
    By verzen in forum Biology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 8th, 2011, 04:48 AM
  3. EUGENICS – Is It Really Bad ?
    By blue_cristal in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 29th, 2011, 04:55 PM
  4. Anti-Eugenics
    By kojax in forum Education
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 24th, 2009, 10:11 AM
  5. Im back
    By Sheppard in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 9th, 2005, 02:30 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •