To be honest, I mean everything relating to the conscious control of reproduction. Both on an individual level and a social level.
Individual: Abortion, genetic modification of fetuses, aborting sick fetuses, etc
Social: Overpopulation. The fact that the poor and stupid significantly outbreed the intelligent leading to all kinds of downward spirals. The welfare system that encourages it's beneficiaries to breed as much as possible - and even to induce disorder into their children to maximize revenue. For instance moms on welfare who have produced several kids with fetal alcohol syndrome, not even to bring up issues like nutritional deficiency.
There are welfare moms who literally have bred 10 children with induced mental handicaps - and they are financially rewarded by society the more they do this.
On a wider but less extreme level, there are psychologically dysfunctional parents who breed at a higher rate than the psychologically sound.
I've spoken with many social workers and teachers and others on the front line of this issue and there is a silent but taboo agreement - the use of force in controlling breeding is essential to the future of humanity.
There is also the wider point that the stupid and poor propagate themselves while the intelligent and wealthy prefer not to. This comes down to economic incentives.
Society would benefit from eugenics programs that specifically encourage successful people to breed and discourage unsuccessful people. Right now the incentives are literally opposite of this.
Anyway this is a big topic with many many facets. But speaking to domain experts and reading widely on the topic, it is very clear that some form of what has classically been described as eugenics is necessary for the success of society.
I disagree, because the "poor and stupid" who reproduce a lot are not necessarily genetically poor and stupid. Education, socialization, lack of opportunity, and environmental effects such as drugs and alcohol play a far bigger role in what you see as "poor and stupid" than genetics do.
I see no reason why a healthy infant from 10 generations of white trash has any less genetic potential than an infant from 10 generations of people who attended Ivy leagues.
Even if it was a good idea, considering the pace of technological development today do you see more benefit in one generation of practiced eugenics versus the advances in technology during that generation?
Also, which of your arguments still apply to the world's most populous country?
Comments
To be honest, I mean everything relating to the conscious control of reproduction. Both on an individual level and a social level.
Individual: Abortion, genetic modification of fetuses, aborting sick fetuses, etc
Social: Overpopulation. The fact that the poor and stupid significantly outbreed the intelligent leading to all kinds of downward spirals. The welfare system that encourages it's beneficiaries to breed as much as possible - and even to induce disorder into their children to maximize revenue. For instance moms on welfare who have produced several kids with fetal alcohol syndrome, not even to bring up issues like nutritional deficiency.
There are welfare moms who literally have bred 10 children with induced mental handicaps - and they are financially rewarded by society the more they do this.
On a wider but less extreme level, there are psychologically dysfunctional parents who breed at a higher rate than the psychologically sound.
I've spoken with many social workers and teachers and others on the front line of this issue and there is a silent but taboo agreement - the use of force in controlling breeding is essential to the future of humanity.
There is also the wider point that the stupid and poor propagate themselves while the intelligent and wealthy prefer not to. This comes down to economic incentives.
Society would benefit from eugenics programs that specifically encourage successful people to breed and discourage unsuccessful people. Right now the incentives are literally opposite of this.
Anyway this is a big topic with many many facets. But speaking to domain experts and reading widely on the topic, it is very clear that some form of what has classically been described as eugenics is necessary for the success of society.
(I'm kissing my karma goodbye right now.)
I disagree, because the "poor and stupid" who reproduce a lot are not necessarily genetically poor and stupid. Education, socialization, lack of opportunity, and environmental effects such as drugs and alcohol play a far bigger role in what you see as "poor and stupid" than genetics do.
I see no reason why a healthy infant from 10 generations of white trash has any less genetic potential than an infant from 10 generations of people who attended Ivy leagues.
If all healthy infants from white trash were raised by ivy leaguers I wouldn't complain.
It's not only about genetics, it's also about upbringing.
Having said that though, it's pretty clear that IQ is related to parentage.
Even if it was a good idea, considering the pace of technological development today do you see more benefit in one generation of practiced eugenics versus the advances in technology during that generation?
Also, which of your arguments still apply to the world's most populous country?