The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell

[Abaddon]

The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell
by Marian Van Court​

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence.
Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population.
Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen.

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation.
Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html

This is the definition of Eugenics I'm using (wiki):
"Eugenics is a social theory advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. "​

Eugenics really that bad? I dont think so. The human race could advance at a much greater rate if we had artificial selection in place.

Oh, and PLEASE dont clog this thread up about Nazi's. Eugenics was an excuse for genocide, not eugenics causes genocides.


#6,000th post WooHoo!

 

[Masquerouge]

I disagree with all the points in your post. But that does not mean I disagree with eugenics. I think it is a good idea to try to improve our abilities - and I think that's what we're doing anyway.

 

[Elrohir]

If you want to marry a smart chick, and have smart babies in order to "help the human race", be my guest. But the government should have no hand in anything of that sort.

 

[Shaihulud]

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

Is this a fact that is universally recognised? I think not. Intelligence depends on a large amount of factors, hereditary being just one of them.

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population.

Can you define this superior civilization? I think my civilization is the superiorest, so i think everyone else should be eugenise at the expense of mine.

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation.

Care to give some figures which country or people that is? I would like to be aware of it, to recognise those people being mentioned. If anyone says something like that, i would like to know who they meant at least.

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline.

I think every age of our civilization, there will be some people saying things like that.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think every age of our civilization, there will be some people saying things like that.

That is so true. Even Plato did it, about the godless Greek youth not respecting their elders...

 

[classical_hero]

Eugenics really that bad? I dont think so.

Obsiously we have not learnt the lessons of the Nazis.

 

[GinandTonic]

Given the history of eugenics its tasteless even to suggest it.

The option for voluntary eugenics is illogical. Voluntary sterilisation or suicide are not eugenics - to be eugenics it has to be inforced.

Eugenics enevitably leads down a path towards the events of the WW2 since someone has to decide which genes are worth keeping, those excluded will enevitably resist and thus require inforcement.

So Im against it totally, and further believe that to suggest it shows arrogance, a lack of respect for humanity, tastelesness, tactlesness and a stunning ignorance of social dynamics and history.

 

[Brighteye]

Feel free not to have any children if you believe in eugenics. Eugenics isn't bad when it's a choice.
Eugenics is bad when it's enforced, because that's destroying the basis of society, which rather limits the desired advancement of the same society.

 

[Masquerouge]

Obsiously we have not learnt the lessons of the Nazis.

Eugenics, stricto sensu, is a way to improve the human race through selective breeding. It does not have to be state-sponsored, as in the Nazi nightmare, and actually we're all guilty of it since the beginning of time - we try to have the best kids possible, and would not marry someone who would genetically harm our kids.

Eugenics can simply be the screening of embryos to detect genetic defects, and I believe that's a good thing: why would I willingly have a kid with a genetical defect?

 

[Masquerouge]

Eugenics enevitably leads down a path towards the events of the WW2 since someone has to decide which genes are worth keeping, those excluded will enevitably resist and thus require inforcement.

Yet everybody is guilty of choosing which genes are worth keeping when they select a mate.

So Im against it totally, and further believe that to suggest it shows arrogance, a lack of respect for humanity, tastelesness, tactlesness and a stunning ignorance of social dynamics and history.

So if we had a way to screen out genetic disease, you would be against it? Would you actually have kids if you knew that, because of your genetic traits, they would have serious genetical problems?

 

[Verbose]

The difference in natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions... is not upon many occasions so much the cause, as the effect of the division of labour. The difference between the most dissimilar characters, between the philosopher and the common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom, and education... By nature a philosopher is not in genius and disposition half so different from a street porter, as a mastiff is from a greyhound...

This I find much more likely.

Anybody wanna guess who wrote that? Sounds vaguely Marxist dun' it?

Spoiler :

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations (1776), ed. Cannan, Chicago UP, 1976, 2 vol., pp. I.19-20

 

[El_Machinae]

The weakness being that, people add to the economy and its growth. Each person costs the economy and benefits the economy. Each person leading a net benefit is worth it; especially because the economy is not 'full'.

In addition, while intelligence is heavily influenced by heredity (I agree with this statement; I can look at a chimp for the reasoning), we are at the cusp of technological interference of this fact. Once the technology exists to push beyond the upper-bound of intelligence, then the heredity does not really matter. It will still be more reasonable to increase someone's intelligence into 'productive' status, with regards to the economy.

In a purely utilitarian viewpoint, it is better to uplift people to make them profitable that to not allow their creation. That is, until the economy is full. Which I don't think will occur for some time.

 

[.Shane.]

Eugenics really that bad? I dont think so.

Absolute hogwash. This thread is appalling.

Let me dissect your bullcrap.

1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

Absolute crap. Tabula Rasa.

2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence.
Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

WTH is "innate intelligence"? Societ relies on wisdom much more than intelligence.

3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population.

WTH does this mean? Its a bunch of jibber jabber. And is loaded w/ false assumptions.

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation.

This shows the idiocy of the author. This has been true at all times. The present is no different.

5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient."

The real problem is overpopulation, not who is having which kids.

This premise of the thread and the source material is repulsive.

 

[Perfection]

I challange you to find one scrap of evidence showing intelligence decline (and no, cutesy answers involving references to pop-culture/politics don't count, so don't try it, buster).

 

[Masquerouge]

WTH is "innate intelligence"? Societ relies on wisdom much more than intelligence.

You mean society is made of priests and not wizards?

The real problem is overpopulation, not who is having which kids.

the real problem is not overpopulation, but overexploitation. Meaning, indeed the world can not sustain 6 billion people living on Western standards, but that's because Western standards are not adequate.

This premise of the thread and the source material is repulsive.

As I said in my first post, I too disagree with all the points in the OP. Yet on eugenics, I think people immediately think "nazi" and thus dismiss the issue, while it is much more complex than that. Genetical improvement of the population is not a bad thing per se, it is when it becomes a state-sponsored tool to achieve perfection of the human race, it is not when it is individual selection of healthy genes for your kids.

 

[RedWolf]

Is this a fact that is universally recognised? I think not. Intelligence depends on a large amount of factors, hereditary being just one of them.

I think you're right it's not ALL hereditary - but dumb people likely produce dumb children due to environment.

Sure part of it is nature but part is nurture. For example - do a child's parents read to it? do they encourage reading?, can THEY read?, do they encourage education/learning/exploration/curiosity? Or are they illiterate lazy slobs that sit around and smoke crack all day?

Those formative years of human development are crucial in how how brain grows, develops and connects neural pathways etc. So whether it be biological evolution or environmental evolution the result is still likely to be that dumb people are making the human race dumber.

That being said - I don't support eugenics...

 

[GinandTonic]

Yet everybody is guilty of choosing which genes are worth keeping when they select a mate.

Again - not eugenics. Eugenics would be the telling others who they are allowed to have kids with.

So if we had a way to screen out genetic disease, you would be against it? Would you actually have kids if you knew that, because of your genetic traits, they would have serious genetical problems?

This is where the holocaust started. Sterilise the spastics and the loons.

This premise of the thread and the source material is repulsive.

Well said sir.

 

[El_Machinae]

Intelligence is commonly thought to be roughly 50% based on genetics. No (current) environmental stimulus will allow a chimp to be as smart as a human.

 

[MOTH]

4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation.
Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children.

The problem with this one is that even if you assume that *average* intelligence is dropping, the *total* intelligence is still rising. In addition to that, there is a greater number of "top" minds in each passing generation that work to the betterment of society/civilization.

ETA: I do believe in personal eugenics. As such I have fathered 2 very smart young boys, and I am considering fathering a third child.

 

[.Shane.]

You mean society is made of priests and not wizards?

Yet another reason to like you! Let me know if you ever come to Davis/Sacramento!

the real problem is not overpopulation, but overexploitation. Meaning, indeed the world can not sustain 6 billion people living on Western standards, but that's because Western standards are not adequate.

Probably a bit of both.

As I said in my first post, I too disagree with all the points in the OP. Yet on eugenics, I think people immediately think "nazi" and thus dismiss the issue, while it is much more complex than that. Genetical improvement of the population is not a bad thing per se, it is when it becomes a state-sponsored tool to achieve perfection of the human race, it is not when it is individual selection of healthy genes for your kids.

But the OP didn't frame the question that way, did he? He chose an extremely poor and foul way of framing the question.

Had he posed something more realistic relative to choices people may be able to make today or in the immediate future, we may have had a decent thread.