Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run

"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."

Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above" (www.eugenics.net...).

Greetings,

As an Asian-American, I support eugenics, as defined as "the improvement of human genetics." Of course, I support "humane" ways of carrying it out, such as genetic engineering, genetic screening, cloning, and laws preventing violent criminals from reproducing. We already have laws controlling many types of behaviors, so reproduction would be no different.

Additional eugenics research is at www.neoeugenics.com...

Since I am Asian, I would like a "fair" program that does not "oppress" non-White Americans, such as myself. People with "good" genes are found in all races, and I think these people should be proliferated, regardless of race.

So, what are your thoughts?

Regards.

Laws to deal with reproduction can be very scary and get out of hand even if started with the most noble of intent. Just look at N Koreas hereditary punishment system for enemies of the state. If your father was found guilty not only you but also your son would be punished for his crimes . 3 generations in a attempt to get rid of the evil "seed"

This good genes stuff sounds to much like a master race for my liking. I dont think anyone has the right to decide what good genes are either.

Originally posted by Ludwig Beethoven
As an Asian-American, I support eugenics,

It's a very dangerous step to take as there will always be a group of people who are viewed as 'inferior' by others.
Adolf Hitler supported Eugenics and so did Henry Kissinger .

Kissinger, in a 1974 memo titled “Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests,” is quoted as saying the following: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World.”

The Third World included many Asian countries.
As an Asian, you should be opposed to this, not encouraging it.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Laws to deal with reproduction can be very scary and get out of hand even if started with the most noble of intent. Just look at N Koreas hereditary punishment system for enemies of the state. If your father was found guilty not only you but also your son would be punished for his crimes . 3 generations in a attempt to get rid of the evil "seed"

That is the slippery slope argument and I would argue it's not valid. That would be like saying we should not have a health care program because one day it can lead to exterminating all people with bad health. It is like saying we should not fight AIDs because it can lead to the extermination of all Blacks and homosexuals since they have the highest rate of AIDs cases. It is like saying we should not have an education system because this can lead to the extermination of all people who don't get a good education. Etc.

This good genes stuff sounds to much like a master race for my liking.

Since I am non-White, I want many "Master Races," not just a White one. I want all races to improve to the level of "Master Race." But, regardless of how the word "Master Race" makes you feel, the fact remains that society has a general consensus of what is a "good" gene and what is a "bad" gene. Genes for high intelligence, good health, and good personality are valued above the opposite.

I dont think anyone has the right to decide what good genes are either.

Why not? Majority rule currently has the "right" to decide many "goods" and "bads," such as morality, education, parenting rules, military action, etc. Are you suggesting anarchy instead?

Regards.

I don't see anything wrong with trying to imporve the race through eugenics; after all we do it for crops and domestic animals all the time.

I wouldn't like the idea of eliminating unwanted persons, but certainly the idea of encouraging smart and healthy people to marry and raise smart and healthy kids makes sense to me.

While at first glance eugenics can appear to make some sense, I have found that once you start applying it to different situations, it can get scary pretty fast.

If I'm wrong someone will correct me, but I think that all medical schools in the US and Canada have this as a required course. They use it to decide things like if a person with Downs Syndrome can go on a transplant waiting list (usually no, not an effective use of resources). Instead of giving everyone an equal chance of survival, it is used to make decisions on how to know when a patient is not worth the treatment, from a financial perspective.

If you are into eugenics you might like to check out Peter Singer. He is a Princeton professor who tends to cause some controversy. I even read an artice of his once where he maintained there was nothing wrong with bestiality because there was no chance of offspring, and if you both enjoyed it, why not? I personally found that kind of disturbing.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
It's a very dangerous step to take as there will always be a group of people who are viewed as 'inferior' by others.
Adolf Hitler supported Eugenics and so did Henry Kissinger .

Most American States had eugenics laws, as did most of Europe, Japan, and several South American Nations. Eugenics has been practiced by ancient Spartans to create stronger soldiers, and practiced by Jews for thousands of years by encouraging higher birthrates among the smartest Jews. So, eugenics was never just a "nazi" thing. So, I am not willing to let my Asian race genetically deteriorate just because of some subjective, non-definable proclamation of "racism."

Kissinger, in a 1974 memo titled “Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests,” is quoted as saying the following: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World.”

Third World's should be depopulated for the simple fact that they have a huge over-population problem. In fact, America will also experience huge population growths and have big problems because of it.

But, aside from this, I want third-worlds to improve their genetics by using eugenics. I would be quite pleased to see African nations sending people to the moon, then Mars, and then Pluto.

Regards.

Originally posted by Off_The_StreetI wouldn't like the idea of eliminating unwanted persons

I completely agree: We should no more exterminate people with "bad" genes anymore than we should exterminate people with other "negative" attributes as well, like STDs, bad breath, low education, too fat, etc.

Rather, people with "bad" genes can be given the opportunity to use genetic engineering technology to provide "good" genes for their offspring.

I can really invision a time when Genetics has come so far that rich people engineer their children to be near perfect. They will pick what traits they want their children to have Tall, hair color, build, remove any chance of genetic disease ect..Then we will have a class of people that consider themselves better then normal birth humans. These second class humans would no doubt be mistreated or regarded and subhuman after time.

But I see what could be a fatal flaw in this eugenics. At the core it assumes "intelligence is largely hereditary" Many people will argue that intelligence has more do to enviroment the gentetics.

If that first assumption is wrong eugenics falls apart

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I can really invision a time when Genetics has come so far that rich people engineer their children to be near perfect. They will pick what traits they want their children to have Tall, hair color, build, remove any chance of genetic disease ect..Then we will have a class of people that consider themselves better then normal birth humans. These second class humans would no doubt be mistreated or regarded and subhuman after time.

Have you ever lived among poor people? Do you rub sholders with them on a daily basis? Do you know them enough to make a claim that they even deserve the altruism of the Middle Class and high class? Do you believe that much of the poor are just genetically lazy and stupid? Do you believe that if they were given the opportunity to get an education, they would put down the beer, drugs, Mtv and Sports Channel, X-Box, etc. and take up an intellectual and politically active life instead?

But, if you truely do care for the poor, stupid, and lazy, then you can push for government subsidized genetic engineering procedures since they can't afford it themselves.

Many people will argue that intelligence has more do to enviroment the gentetics.

And these people would be wrong. From www.eugenics.net...

"1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

Scientists have found that identical twins separated at birth and raised apart are very similar in IQ. Remarkably, twins reared apart are as similar as identical twins reared together by the time they're adults. They also resemble one another strikingly in their mannerisms, the way they laugh, their likes and dislikes, phobias, temperament, sexual preference, educational achievement, income, conscientiousness, musical ability, sense of humor, whether they're criminals or law-abiding, and pretty much everything else that's ever been tested, even traits as peculiar as which vegetables they refuse to eat (Bouchard, 1993). The extent of their similarity amazes even the researchers and the twins themselves.

The primacy of genes is likewise demonstrated by adoption studies. Adopted children's IQs resemble those of their biological parents far more closely than they resemble those of their adoptive parents, who essentially provided them with their environments from the time of birth onwards. When adopted children are grown, there's no virtually resemblance between their IQs and those of their adoptive parents (Loehlin, Willerman, and Horn, 1987).

The dominant role of heredity in determining IQ is not a theory, it's an established fact, the consensus of hundreds of studies conducted in different times and places by many different researchers. But the public is largely unaware of this fact because the liberal media have told them repeatedly that most experts in IQ testing believe IQ is largely environmental. In reality, the majority of researchers in the field of intelligence testing believes heredity is the more important factor (Snyderman and Rothman, 1988)."

Maybe first, we should put that money into giving these poor people an equal opportunity to an education, and the same kind of access to computers and libraries that us middle-class folks have. Then, if after several generations the same results are still evident, and there has been no perceptible improvement, we can re-visit the subject. My status as a Canuckian may have an influence on my opinion, however.

While eugenics offers much interesting food for thought, and in itself is not neccessarily bad, sometimes you have to look at what can happen when taken to the extreme. Not the fault of the science, but rather human nature. There will always be someone who will want to take it as far as they can.

Originally posted by Ludwig Beethoven

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Many people will argue that intelligence has more do to enviroment the gentetics.

And these people would be wrong. From www.eugenics.net...

"1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

It is not quite that easy when it comes to Nature VS Nuture

The in-ability to recognize which factor, nature or nurture, is responsible for any specific trait, but knowing that one or both of the two is responsible, will keep the argument of genetics vs. environment in the forefront of our search for answers for a long, long time.

The effect of environment can not reasonably be dismissed as a factor on intelligence. You may site IQ test but they are far from perfect themselves.These tests are not always completely accurate though. Many times these tests can be culturally biased and provide inaccurate results.

About your twin study hypothesis was true, than a child living in a rich area, who attended a great school would have the same IQ if he were attending an inner-city school and lived in a very poor area. But, studies seem to show the opposite occurs.

Home environment and styles of parenting influence intelligence. People will perform differently depending on how much they are encouraged at home and depending on the type of relationship they have with their family. Social class can also affect intelligence. People in higher social classes tend to achieve higher IQ scores


Some psychologists believe intelligence is influenced by genetics, others believe it is environment which influences intelligence. For everyone that you find that thinks Gentics I can find one that thinks enviroment.

It is not quite that easy when it comes to Nature VS Nuture

Yes, it is.

For everyone that you find that thinks Gentics I can find one that thinks enviroment.

For everyone that you find that thinks God does not exist, I can find one who thinks God does exist. So what?

Behavioral Genetics in the Postgenomic Era, published by the American Psychological Association, 2003. Editors: Plomin, Defries, Graig & McGuffin

"Willerman, Schultz, Rutledge, and Bigler correlated brain size as measured through MRI within a sample of 40 unrelated participants. They found a correlation of 0.51, which was higher in men (0.65) than in women (0.35). In a follow-up study, Willerman, Schultz, Rutledge and Bigler suggested that, in men, a relatively larger left hemisphere better predicted verbal IQ than it predicted performance IQ, whereas in women the opposite was true. Since then, several studies have provided confirmative evidence that brain volume and IQ correlate around 0.40.

"In a large MRI study including 111 twin pairs and 34 additional siblings, the heritability of volumes of several brain structures was investigated. Heritability estimates for intracranial volume, total brain volume, gray-matter volume, white-matter volume, and cerebellar volume were all between 80% and 90%. Genetic intercorrelations between these measures were all very high, indicating that a largely overlapping set of genes is responsible for individual differences in each of these measures…. This indicates that about half of the genetic influences on either cerebral brain volume or IQ is due to genetic factors influencing both. Put differently, 80% of the phenotypic [observed human differences] correlation is explained by genetic mediation."

"This suggests that genes important for brain size, reaction times, inspection time, and theta coherence may also be important for intelligence, which fits very well in the myelination hypothesis as formulated by Miller. According to this hypothesis, generally, the relation between speed and intelligence can be explained if part of the interindividual variance in intelligence can be ascribed to interindividual variance in the degree of myelination of cortico-cortical connections. If true, this could explain why more intelligent brains show faster nerve conduction, faster reaction times, and faster inspection times. And, all other things equal, thicker myelin sheaths will result in larger brain volume, thus explaining the positive relation between brain size and IQ."

------------------------------------------------------

The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Edited by Helmuth Nyborg, 2003

"In Chapter 2, Britt Anderson takes a closer look at the brain size-g relationship. He first discusses the low and variable relationships found in earlier studies using such rough measures as external head circumference, and then presents the outcome of studies using more exacting in vivo neuro-imaging techniques. The overall conclusion is that anatomical and metabolic imaging techniques using magnetic resonance technology suggest a correlation in the order of 0.35 between brain size and IQ, a finding that is consistent across multiple experimental groups. Another important conclusion is that the majority of individual variation in intelligence is not explained by variation in brain volume. A third conclusion is, that we still do not know whether specific brain regions or compartments are the principal basis for the size-IQ correlation, and this sets the stage for further experiments exploiting the many new capabilities of magnetic resonance imaging and other brain image techniques."

He also notes that others have concluded that, "between 80~90 percent of brain volume is heritable, and that the genetic correlation between brain volume and IQ is 0.48."

"The causes of genetically based racial differences in intelligence should be sought in their evolutionary history. Differences in IQ must have developed together with differences in skin color, morphology and resistance to diseases as adaptations to the environments in which the races evolved. We can reconstruct the broad outline of how this occurred. Modern humans evolved in Central East Africa about a quarter of a million years ago. Their brain size was the same as that of living blacks and it can be assumed that their intelligence was the same, represented by an IQ of 69."

"The morphological basis of the increase in intelligence in the Caucasoids and Mongoloids was an enlargement of brain size the evidence for which is set out by Rushton."

"Myopia (near-sightedness) is positively correlated with IQ. The relationship appears to be pleiotropic, that is, a gene affecting one of the traits also has some effect on the other. Further, there are significant racial and ethnic differences in the frequency of myopia, with the highest rates found in East Asians, the lowest rates among Africans and Europeans intermediate. Among Europeans, Jews have the highest rate of myopia, about twice that of gentiles and about on a par with that of Asians. Miller suggested that myopia is caused by extra myelinization in the eye and is similarly linked to brain size."

"Ulric Neisser, Chair of the recent American Psychological Association's Task Force Report on The Bell Curve, acknowledged that, with respect to 'racial differences in the mean measured sizes of skulls and brains (with East Asians having the largest, followed by Whites and then Blacks) ... there is indeed a small overall trend.'"

I think that your second hypothesis, that civilization relies upon innate intelligence is incorrect. I believe that civilization relies upon technology, which does not necessarily relate to the intelligence of the general populous. Although it helps, you don't always have to understand technology to use it.

Eugenics is evil....

It was the justification for the Holocaust during the second world war and the White Australia Policy, responsible for programs of mass sterilisation and advocated by the Nazi's and Prescott Bush....

Think what were talking about here people, letting the government decide what attributes are best for the citizens to have...

Should you get your wish my asian freind, all you and your fellows are dead, compulsarily sterilised and extinct in one generation, as are african Americans. Don't imagine for one moment that giving the government this much power will mean they will exercise it in any more responsible fashion than they run the economy and foreign affairs.

Your analagy that poor people are inherently less intellegent is so sad as to be pathetic. Sidhartha Guatama renounced his riches, Jesus was a carpenter, Ghandi owned nothing and the man in Britain with the highest IQ in the country is a British Rail worker.

As for the rich being more intellegent, how about you try discussing that with affluent personalities such as Jessica Simpson, Anna Nicole Smith or Ozzy Osbourne (God bless him!). All of whom would find it hard to work out which end of a toothbrush you put in your mouth.

Stephen J Hawking is a cripple, Alan Turing was homosexual, Micheal Jordan is bald, and Marylin Munroe had six toes on her foot, but they were/are all great in their own way. We can't pretend to understand why people work out or they don't...

thats God's job.

Eugenics is evil....

That is a non-scientific comment: no one can prove any action is moral or immoral in the absolute sense. I believe opposing eugenics is immoral.

It was the justification for the Holocaust during the second world war

Incorrect. Hitler persecuted Jews not because he thought they were genetically inferior, but rather because he thought they were very intelligent and would provide too much competition with German interests. Here is an accurate history of eugenics: www.amren.com...

In fact, while the Jews were promoting the idea that Jews were the "Master Race," Hitler was promoting the idea that Germans were the Master Race. But in the end, the Germans overpowered the Jews, instead of vice versa. Here is info. on this: www.theoccidentalquarterly.com... and www.theoccidentalquarterly.com...

Think what were talking about here people, letting the government decide what attributes are best for the citizens to have...

Government already decides much of our lives: drug laws, prostitution laws, hate crime laws, Free Speech laws, homosexual marriage laws, etc. Now they will decide one more thing.

Should you get your wish my asian freind, all you and your fellows are dead, compulsarily sterilised and extinct in one generation, as are african Americans.

Again, the slippery slope argument, see my response to this in my previous posts.

Your analagy that poor people are inherently less intellegent is so sad as to be pathetic. Sidhartha Guatama renounced his riches, Jesus was a carpenter, Ghandi owned nothing and the man in Britain with the highest IQ in the country is a British Rail worker.

It's all about averages. On average, IQ is positively correlated to Socio-economic success.

Stephen J Hawking is a cripple, Alan Turing was homosexual, Micheal Jordan is bald, and Marylin Munroe had six toes on her foot, but they were/are all great in their own way.

Hawking has a very high IQ, so you just proved my point that IQ is very important for success.

I don't value athletes or actors.

Regarding homosexuals, they are an evolutionary dead end: all species are required to reproduce to survive.

We can't pretend to understand why people work out or they don't...

Exactly, we can't pretend, we must use actual science for this instead, and eugenics is indeed based on science.

thats God's job.

So then I guess we should not kill terrorists, since only "God" can determine the worth of any human.

Regards.

Originally posted by RobotAlligator
I think that your second hypothesis, that civilization relies upon innate intelligence is incorrect. I believe that civilization relies upon technology, which does not necessarily relate to the intelligence of the general populous. Although it helps, you don't always have to understand technology to use it.

Here is a chart of the National IQ averages of 185 countries and their respective GDP: www.rlynn.co.uk... You will notice a general trend: the higher the IQ average, the higher the GDP.

Regards.

Eugenics has been a recipe for murder and worse. Even technologies such as ultra-sound that have allowed people to select the gender of their children has led to large numbers of aborted and abandoned female children in many countries (for example, look at the gender balance among children in India).

We can sit around and discuss all the potential good things that we could envision doing with eugenics but it is just talk and theory. When put into practice such thinking has created problems at best, nightmares at worst.

The thinking in our societies has to evolve before we can be trusted to start messing with the fundamentals of nature in a competent way. We are not sufficiently respectful and in harmony with nature.

Originally posted by Ludwig Beethoven
"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.
...

So, what are your thoughts?

Regards.

Sounds a lot like Nazi German propoganda.. at first their Eugenics program started out with 'humane' ways of doing it too... it quickly went bad, and then turned to outright-genocide.

What I found particular amusing was your statement:

Since I am Asian, I would like a "fair" program that does not "oppress" non-White Americans, such as myself. People with "good" genes are found in all races, and I think these people should be proliferated, regardless of race.

Wouldn't it be funny if your Eugenics idea scientifically decided that all people of Asian decent were susceptable to certain genetic flaws and none of you were allowed to reproduce (sterlized prior to puberty, in a very *humane* operation)..

Now I'm not saying it's true, but that's the sort of thing you are opening us all upto if you even remotely think this is a good idea..

If you want to practice eugenics, do it the old way.. stop meddling with the lives of others, remove the 'caution, hot coffee' warning labels from cups of coffee and the 'pastic bags can suffocate children' and you'll be just fine...

I can't even believe you posted that... You should have read the article in the NY Times last week.. you sound *exactly* like that bull$$$$ that the Germans were pounding out just prior to WWII.

Osiris

*Please do not put entire Post in Bold

[edit]** I didn't.. must have been a hanging bold tag I missed.. thanks for fixing it **[/edit]

[edit on 16-1-2005 by TrickmastertricK]

[edit on 16-1-2005 by otlg27]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

But I see what could be a fatal flaw in this eugenics. At the core it assumes "intelligence is largely hereditary" Many people will argue that intelligence has more do to enviroment the gentetics.

If that first assumption is wrong eugenics falls apart

Actually intelligence *is* heriditary, not knowledge. I know lots of smart people who know nothing and can barely function in the real world, and lots of 'dumb' people who do very well. I'm very intelligent, but there are many times when someone less intelligent has beat my through shear willpower and effort.

Intelligence is *not* the end all and be all.

Knowledge cannot be controlled through any form of genetic engineering, only social engineering solves that problem.

Regards,

Osiris