Eugenics

[Trance]

Hello,

So far I've been impressed and comforted by the level of maturity on this forum. No peanut gallery popping out of their gopher holes to accuse each other of "trolling" whenever the subject deviates from television norms. It's nice to meet all of you.

I'm looking to connect with other aesthetically sensitive, high-IQ individuals who are interested in the promotion of eugenics, whether in a specific nation or internationally, whether via public relations or something more Machiavellian.

Despite excelling initially, I've become alienated from mainstream academic institutions due to their financially-motivated refusal to study actual improvement of our species. Therefore I want to start 'from scratch' and help assemble a loose community similar to those currently established for transhumanists.

Every day billions of people consume medications with unknown (or knowingly ignored) long-term side effects such as fluoroquinolone antibiotics. Already we recklessly tamper with our DNA. These measures are justified by 'the market' on one end and by the desperation of patients on the other end. We already willingly take the worst risks a eugenic society could bring to the table (playing with evolution at the most fundamental levels) yet we refuse to actually benefit from it or even attempt to steer it.

I'm interested in all facets and extremes of eugenics, from environmentalism/world population containment, to the (successfully demonstrated) extinction of inherited diseases via voluntary screened breeding, to global artistic ascension via positive eugenics, to 'ethnic waste management' (negroids and other groups prone to rape and philosophical stagnation) via negative eugenics and dysgenic studies, to eugenics which overlaps with transhumanism, choosing a worthy foundation for augmentation.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'm not surprised that you have been alienated from mainstream academic institutions. Eugenics is enough of a hot-button word that it would be a hard sell all by itself, but this part is a real project-killer:

'ethnic waste management' (negroids and other groups prone to rape and philosophical stagnation) via negative eugenics and dysgenic studies

Each race has an element of human waste. By mentioning one race in particular that is stereotyped in a negative light and 2 undesirable traits, it is likely to make the average person think that you are referring to genocide. I'm sure that's not your intention, but I can see why the way you phrase things could be taken the wrong way.

It is unfortunate that people who might be brilliant in one specific area, like science, might have a huge deficit in another area, like effective communication with people.

Improving humanity is a noble goal. I think that a multi-tiered approach would be most efficient. What I see already happening is a set of social movements that will ultimately affect mate selection. If no one selects a rapist, murderer, thief, etc. for a mate, their genes will not be passed on. In addition to that, improvements are being made in matchmaking services for those who want help selecting a good mate.

This year, this planet will see its population rise to over 7 billion. Sustainability issues are rising faster than scientific achievement to overcome these issues because people are more interested in spending time, money, and effort on more trivial and counterproductive endeavors than science. That leaves a situation where, although most dare not admit it, thinning of the population will have to occur either consciously or through the less humane methods of natural selection.

30-40 years ago, Americans were told about sustainability and asked to not have any more than 2-3 children. Many who understood the problem complied, and many of those elected to even not procreate at all. Those who didn't understand didn't comply, and in time the general population did notice that we were self-selecting against intelligence.

We need to undo that as best as we can by promoting procreation of the intelligent, even if that means potentially reaching unsustainability sooner. We can point out that one of these more intelligent babies might grow up to provide a better answer than what we come up with. This would be a bit politically incorrect to suggest that more intelligent people might find a better answer, but if we emphasize that intelligent people are just as good as normal people, we might be forgiven.

That does leave a great deal more people than can be sustained, and none of the solutions to that predicament are pleasant to discuss. We do need to keep in mind that with upcoming climate changes, biodiversity is important. We can't choose just the top X number of people and eliminate the rest especially if that wipes out a race or more. You may want to look over my Legalize Murder thread. The language is a bit extreme, and someone is probably wetting himself from laughing so hard that I reference that thread after mildly chastising you for a shortness of politically correct phrasing, but some of the concepts do apply here.

So far I've been impressed and comforted by the level of maturity on this forum. No peanut gallery popping out

We do have an immature peanut gallery. Please ignore them.

Welcome to the board.

[cousinbasil]

I'm interested in all facets and extremes of eugenics, from environmentalism/world population containment... to 'ethnic waste management' (negroids and other groups prone to rape and philosophical stagnation)

A typical definition of "eugenics": The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

One can only imagine what "all facets of extreme eugenics" might entail, in your view. It should be needless to say that when the selection is being implemented, someone is doing the selecting. How does society select the selectors, may I ask? After all, the Nazis hid X-ray generators behind train and airport counters past which Jewish-only passengers were herded as they fled the growing Third Reich. The idea was to bombard the gonads of the Jews going by to sterilize them. Later, other "solutions" were put into place, like Dachau, Auschwitz, etc.

You seem to favor ethnic cleansing and leave the methods and details up in the air. So forced sterilization of someone because his color identifies him as someone "prone to rape" would be on the agenda. Apparently, you view this stance as an example of thinking which is not "philosophically stagnated."

Eventually, your selective reproduction schemes in the name of genetic advancement will lead to some kind of institutionalized killing. Society already does that to some degree with the prison systems in the civilized world. You can only hope that you will not one day wind up in such an institution, where one of the head "negroids" in charge might demonstrate upon you one of the rapes to which you claim he is so prone.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

all facets and extremes of eugenics

"all facets of extreme eugenics"

The words are slightly different, but the meanings are vastly different.

[cousinbasil]

all facets and extremes of eugenics

"all facets of extreme eugenics"

The words are slightly different, but the meanings are vastly different.

Different, maybe. But vastly different in what way? "Extreme eugenics" and "extremes of eugenics"; they mean the same thing thing to me in terms of the questionable nature of the intent.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Putting Trance's words back int context:

I'm interested in all facets and extremes of eugenics

This tells me that his specialty is the entire range of eugenics, as opposed to say, just specializing in gene manipulation.

One can only imagine what "all facets of extreme eugenics" might entail, in your view.

This makes it look to me like you are misquoting him to say:

I'm interested in all facets of extreme eugenics

That makes it sound like his focus is on genocide, authority approved breeding programs with forced abortions of unapproved fetuses, and other draconian measures exclusively.

All facets AND extremes of eugenics would include the form of eugenics currently supported by mainstream society, where both the male and female involved in procreation select themselves and each other as good biological parents (which would include having a good probability of being genetically worthy of passing on their genes) and using birth control - either permanent forms if they are unworthy of passing on genes, or temporary forms if it is merely bad timing for them to be parents.

Also, simply as a scientific and philosophical exercise, even if conventionally acceptable methods are the optimal solution, sometimes looking at unconventional methods can provide food for thought of more conventional means. For example, while it is generally unacceptable to have an authority figure determine who you should breed with to create an optimal baby, by thinking about the combination of optimal genetics and acceptable authorities to determine who should breed with who, you might come up with a matchmaking service that only accepts high quality genetic choices, or a dating service (maybe online) that caters to people who have the qualities that you would like to see passed on to the next generation - but hey, these already exist to a degree. They just aren't big enough or organized enough or fill-in-reason-here to do as much as they could if - fill in other reasons here (more people of high quality were supported in a choice to procreate, etc.).

Being inclusive of the extremes, leaving open the reality that sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures but such things are for last resort emergency measures, and using the extremes as a thought exercise to improve and expand more conventional methods, is vastly different from embracing the extremes exclusively.

[cousinbasil]

I see how you are reading it, Elizabeth, but it is not how I read it. "All facets" alone logically should include "extremes." Trance seemed to me to be emphasizing the extremes by phrasing it as "all facets and extremes."

All facets AND extremes of eugenics would include the form of eugenics currently supported by mainstream society, where both the male and female involved in procreation select themselves and each other as good biological parents (which would include having a good probability of being genetically worthy of passing on their genes) and using birth control - either permanent forms if they are unworthy of passing on genes, or temporary forms if it is merely bad timing for them to be parents.

Yes, all facets, by itself, would include what mainstream society already does. I didn't get the impression that the status quo is what Trance is talking about. And what you describe is hardly "eugenics"; it is simply what people do.

Being inclusive of the extremes, leaving open the reality that sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures but such things are for last resort emergency measures, and using the extremes as a thought exercise to improve and expand more conventional methods, is vastly different from embracing the extremes exclusively.

In the last 100 years, genocide has been anything but a mere thought exercise.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

"All facets" alone logically should include "extremes." Trance seemed to me to be emphasizing the extremes by phrasing it as "all facets and extremes."

Understood.

currently supported by mainstream society

all facets, by itself, would include what mainstream society already does.

"Currently supported" is different from "does" or there would be no rapes resulting in pregnancy, people tricked into procreating - whether women falsely claiming to be on the pill or men just pretending to put on a condom or either intentionally poking a hole in the condom, etc. There would also not be any unintended pregnancies where the birth control method simply failed, or people who literally did not know or could not comprehend how pregnancy happens suddenly finding themselves pregnant or having impregnated someone.

[cousinbasil]

"Currently supported" is different from "does" or there would be no rapes resulting in pregnancy, people tricked into procreating - whether women falsely claiming to be on the pill or men just pretending to put on a condom or either intentionally poking a hole in the condom, etc. There would also not be any unintended pregnancies where the birth control method simply failed, or people who literally did not know or could not comprehend how pregnancy happens suddenly finding themselves pregnant or having impregnated someone.

I think you are talking about aberrant behavior. I know there is not any system in place. What I meant is, humans naturally select for as high a quality mate as they think they can get when it comes to establishing more permanent relationships. Women select for financial stability and men for looks (DNA!), etc.

I am not sure why you are concentrating on the fallible side of human nature. The production by each generation of the succeeding generation is of course not eugenically ideal. It never has been, yet there is an overall improvement in the gene pool gradually occurring over time by the natural tendency of people to choose their mates. When mates are chosen for people, notably in some royal circles, the quality of the gene pool diminishes and substandard phenotypes emerge (retards, hemophiliacs, epileptics, etc.)

To me, the idea of "eugenics" implies "interference." The basic tenet is questionable: People cannot be relied upon to choose their mates and produce offspring in a way beneficial to society. Therefore, their behavior in these areas will be monitored, controlled and or influenced... by more people.

At the same time, doesn't society already practice forms of eugenics? After it became obvious that welfare regulations in the US fostered unwed parenthood of those on its rolls, movement to curtail benefits has been made. Also, readily filling prisons with minority and poor inmates keeps them from procreating for large chunks of their lives.

What I object to is how nicely euphemistic the term "eugenics" is - it has a healthy ring to it like "hygienic." In its extreme facets, it entails gross interference by society - read here, the state - in the most personal, intimate arenas of human activity. Because society has created the state to which it delegates its more distasteful tasks. The individual cannot carry out capital punishment, but the state can and does. Individual citizens cannot arm themselves and band together to enforce their will or mete out justice; we have created the state which does that, and as can be seen in the Iraq war, the state is above accountability.

Do you really wish to cede our most intimate behavior to the state or some other sanctioned agency? Or is it okay as long as only the "negroids and other groups prone to rape and philosophical stagnation'' are monitored?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Do you really wish to cede our most intimate behavior to the state or some other sanctioned agency? Or is it okay as long as only the "negroids and other groups prone to rape and philosophical stagnation'' are monitored?

Not only was that not my position - strawman argument - but by in a totally uncalled-for move playing the race card, no further logical discourse is possible at this point.

[cousinbasil]

Do you really wish to cede our most intimate behavior to the state or some other sanctioned agency? Or is it okay as long as only the "negroids and other groups prone to rape and philosophical stagnation'' are monitored?

Not only was that not my position - strawman argument - but by in a totally uncalled-for move playing the race card, no further logical discourse is possible at this point.

Hey, I didn't say it was your position. And I have no motivation for "playing race cards." I was just looking at what was already on the table here. The words Trance used speak for themselves. And you are right, it might be considered a strawman argument if we were arguing. I thought it was clear that my objections were aimed at the terms Trance used in the opening post. Words are important.

The first question I asked in the quote is legitimate. Do we want the state deciding which parts of the gene pool are allowed to propagate? The necessary ingredients are already at hand: the human genome has been mapped; information technology allows for databases to be maintained; the population keeps growing and the resources are stretched.

And the second question in the part of my post you quoted is valid as well, isn't it? Doesn't somebody have to ask it when these things are discussed? Elizabeth, your reaction to what I wrote makes it seem as if I were trying to put words in your mouth. Putting words in another's mouth is never my intent in any post, or in real life, for that matter.

If you want to bail on discussing this issue, okay with me. I'd like a little follow-up by Trance, anyway.

[Ryan Rudolph]

The major hurtle for genetic advancement is the acceptance of raising a fetus outside the female body artificially. As far as I know, there isn't much research going into this area because it is so unpopular.

Because its fine if we start discovering the genetic basis for many medical and mental disorders, but then we need to be able to actually alter the zygote at a crucial point of development.

There basically needs to be underground scientists doing experiments on animals during their zygotic development, by tinkering with genes, and seeing what the outcome is when you alter certain gene expressions.

This seems like the first step to me.

[cousinbasil]

There basically needs to be underground scientists doing experiments on animals during their zygotic development, by tinkering with genes, and seeing what the outcome is when you alter certain gene expressions.

Will you allow visitors to the island, Dr. Moreau?

[Ryan Rudolph]

CB,

Will you allow visitors to the island, Dr. Moreau?

no, as you point out, humanity is too emotional to see its importance, they would judge perfecting the species genetically as playing god because that is exactly what it is.

It comes down to whether you believe science should be used to transform the species into something beyond its current crude animalistic prototype....I believe it should be used for that, and we are slowly moving in that direction anyway.

Another major challenge is experimenting on mastering raising a fetus in an artificial womb successfully. Such a achievement would be in the same realm as curing a major disease. It would be very difficult. To have a regulated type of technology that could feed a fetus in its artificial womb. You would have to quantity the how much nutrition is given at different stages of development, definitely not easy...

A good start would be experimenting on baby monkey fetuses in artifical wombs, and see if one could be raised to the nine month mark, and then live a normal life, with normal development. However, I would imagine thousands of monkey fetuses would be lost in the process. But hey, that's scientific progress. Crude, amoral and inefficient...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Trance, the subject of eugenics comes up once in a while, and it's surely an interesting one, if not provocative at times.

The world population containment angle interests me right now, but I'm at a loss to define some measure of selection. Instinctively one always promotes "ones own", for example even with simple pain treatment. In the same way one tends to select ones own culture, values or habits as norm, which instinctively deserves more rights than anything opposing or challenging it. The moment widespread complete control of the genome would have been achieved, a more careful approach might be needed as the wills and nills of stupid people wielding technology and money might actually destroy the quality and strength of genetic material pretty fast in the light of the ability to be rational or at least not self-destructive.

One worldview which keeps tempting me is one where "we" as a people are constantly steering towards genocidal tendencies and practices but each and every time recoil in terror when awareness is raised on how many global policies are continuously geared towards mass-murder while hiding under proud names or some warped social theory. Each few decades now, against all "better knowing", policies are set in motion which aims to kill millions, if not billions. In an indiscriminate way perhaps but one could argue that a limited size gene pool trumps the bloated large one in terms of genetic drift and as such evolutionary speed, artificially enhanced or not. Would that be a change some on this planet could believe in?

[Ryan Rudolph]

I stand corrected, apparently artificial womb research is being done by a few scientists.

Interesting article:

This scientist has gotten quite far with an artificial mouse womb, not bad. At least we are up to mammals.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2 ... cial-wombs

[Blair]

Easier to just throw a peanut.

[davegrave]

There's no way that capitalist societies will ever support forced sterilization, not in any of our lifetimes. Trying to sell it to normal people is bound to fail. I don't even see the point of discussing extreme eugenics (forced), because it will never happen and I wouldn't want it to. It's an infringement of rights and could lead to all sorts of things, seeing as it's an emotional issue and each person has a different idea of what superior and inferior human qualities are.

I support eugenics, but I see it as more important to give an incentive for physical weaklings, the botched, and the feeble-minded not to reproduce, rather than forcing high-IQ individuals to reproduce as much as possible, even if those high-IQ people have other genetic flaws.

The only way I can see the idea ever becoming accepted by the mainstream is to make sure the weak have something to gain from it. I'd support a government-plan to cut taxes for low-IQ people who allow themselves to be sterilized, as well as generous grants given to high-IQ individuals for each child they have, provided they meet some objective criteria that proves they are mentally and physically healthy enough. As the culture changes, average and below-average people who become more aware of their inferiority will make the choice not to have children, and the world will be better off.

[davegrave]

to 'ethnic waste management' (negroids and other groups prone to rape and philosophical stagnation) via negative eugenics and dysgenic studies, to eugenics which overlaps with transhumanism, choosing a worthy foundation for augmentation.

The good thing about those races is that they are also more prone to violence, and that combined with a violent culture means that the less rational members of the race join gangs and kill each other in large numbers. That's great, in my opinion. Even when they don't kill each other they often end up in prison away from women.

Rational, above average-IQ blacks tend to get ahead in this society, regardless any racial discrimination that still exists. They're materialistic and love money, which causes women to flock to them, and they usually choose a white women for a wife. As long as the white woman is healthy and has a decent IQ, then that's great: mixed race couples are more likely to have healthier, happier, more attractive children.

[cousinbasil]

...mixed race couples are more likely to have healthier, happier, more attractive children.

Than...? Non-mixed race couples, such as white couples? Elizabeth has already accused me of putting words in her mouth in this thread, so I want to make it clear that I am not trying to do that. It's just that I think there's a meme in there somewhere and I am trying to sniff it out. When blacks insist that racism is very much alive and well, I believe it is at the meme-level they refer to, the thought that is not expressed and yet is all too familiar. Because it sounded like you were implying mixed race couple are "more likely to have healthier, happier, more attractive children" than black couples.

[davegrave]

...mixed race couples are more likely to have healthier, happier, more attractive children.

Than...? Non-mixed race couples, such as white couples? Elizabeth has already accused me of putting words in her mouth in this thread, so I want to make it clear that I am not trying to do that. It's just that I think there's a meme in there somewhere and I am trying to sniff it out. When blacks insist that racism is very much alive and well, I believe it is at the meme-level they refer to, the thought that is not expressed and yet is all too familiar. Because it sounded like you were implying mixed race couple are "more likely to have healthier, happier, more attractive children" than black couples.

Than non-interracial couples.

[cousinbasil]

davegrave: ...mixed race couples are more likely to have healthier, happier, more attractive children.
cousinbasil: Than...?
davegrave: Than non-interracial couples.

Since "more attractive" would purely be a matter of taste, or personal opinion, I can't comment on your assertion.

On the other hand, you are claiming mixed race couples have children that are also happier and healthier than non-interracial couples. On what grounds do you base this statement? It seems false on the face of it.

Also, I have known a few people who are half of an "interracial" couple, and for some reason, the term they use for their children is "biracial." Don't know if this is just PC nonsense, or if they find it helps their children become happier and healthier and not have self-esteem issues. Admittedly, my personal acquaintances do not make for a very reliable statistical sampling.

[davegrave]

davegrave: ...mixed race couples are more likely to have healthier, happier, more attractive children.
cousinbasil: Than...?
davegrave: Than non-interracial couples.

Since "more attractive" would purely be a matter of taste, or personal opinion, I can't comment on your assertion.

On the other hand, you are claiming mixed race couples have children that are also happier and healthier than non-interracial couples. On what grounds do you base this statement? It seems false on the face of it.

Also, I have known a few people who are half of an "interracial" couple, and for some reason, the term they use for their children is "biracial." Don't know if this is just PC nonsense, or if they find it helps their children become happier and healthier and not have self-esteem issues. Admittedly, my personal acquaintances do not make for a very reliable statistical sampling.

There have been studies suggesting that biracial children are more attractive, though I question the validity, considering today's PC world where the media cherry picks studies that favor egalitarianism (I did get it from a left-leaning news source).

I'm no expert on the subject, but I do know that a variety of genes will more likely produce healthier children... and it kind of follows that 'healthier = happier'... at least I would've thought.

Much of my original post was speculation. On a forum like this, I should've made it clear that I wasn't trying to be completely rational. That's what I like, it works for me. My writing style is whimsical and irregular but it often helps bring out ideas that can be analyzed and tested later on.

[Blair]

In other words, you really don't know what you are talking about, do you...

[cousinbasil]

I'm no expert on the subject, but I do know that a variety of genes will more likely produce healthier children... and it kind of follows that 'healthier = happier'... at least I would've thought.

There's plenty of variety within a specific race. While a biracial set of parents would guarantee DNA variety, most same-race parentage isn't incest, except in the Ozarks, maybe.

Your reasoning would be more valid if you were speaking of breeding, as in the canine world where pure-bred animals are often the result of line-breeding and can exhibit weaknesses inherited along with the desired traits. Even inbred DNA usually takes several generations arising from a restricted gene pool before undesirable traits appear. Good examples are in isolated small mountain regions (like the Ozarks or Black Mountains), among the Amish, and within royal dynasties.

So to assume biracial offspring would be genetically healthier is suspect reasoning at best. And to equate health with happiness is not much better. Biracial parents are apt to face numerous stresses that same-race parents would not, especially if the same race parents are from the majority race in the area in which they live. These stresses would affect any children, who would face their own negative reactions from the surrounding, majority community. If you think about it, biracial children are always anomalies, no matter what kind of population in which they live.

In fact, these external negative effects could easily have an impact on a child's happiness, and therefore his health, instead of the cause-effect being the other way around.

While the mixed-race couple you have described is likely to be more well off than the same-race couple if the same-race couple were black, say, one can assume if the same-race couple to which you were comparing them were white (or Asian in Japan, for example) it would make sense to assume the same-race couple would be in a higher socio-economic bracket. As such, they would be able to afford better health care than the biracial couple, live a healthier lifestyle, etc.

Only if your original claims pertained to a black-white couple versus an all black couple would they be valid. Which was why I asked if that was what you meant.