Francis Galton Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Hi , I was wondering if anyone believes eugenics, if applied in a manner most would accept as humane and ethical, would be a good idea. A few years ago when searching the internet for why I personally was not really that bright and had to stuggle in school and in college right now, while my sibling was extremely intelligent and quickly and without difficulty earned a Bachelor's Degree in science, I came across the site of http://www.neoeugenics.com/ I read about IQ, psychometrics, personality types, eugenics/dysgenics, genetic engineering, cloning, and similar topics. I found out that IQ is mostly genetic and that this is why I personally was not as successful as many others. So, I ask myself, why not try to help future children by making sure they all get the best of genes available? I, from personal experience, knew what it felt like to have learning disorders and just an average IQ at best, and felt resentful at how smarter people took for granted their higher intellect without really appreciating it. The consensus among the smart is that it is good to have stupid people and that they deserve to be as such and that they are needed to clean the toilets and take out the garbage of the smart people, so thus it would not be in the best interest of smart people to support eugenics. The problem of course is that eugenics is often tied to stories of genocide and greatly inhumane acts. But, if we look at the history of religion, medicine, and the like, everything can be taken to extremes, but it does not have to be. Eugenics can be mild: we can encourage brighter people to have more children and the welfare class to have fewer children. Also, with the emerging genetic engineering technology and cloning, all parents can have bright children. As a non-White person, I of course don't support race-based eugenics, but rather one in which smart people, regardless of race, is valued, and less intelligent people, regardless of race, is something people would wish they could help to become more intelligent, if technology would allow. What are your thoughts? Regards, Francis Galton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 No, I don't think eugenics is a good idea at all. The only way to accomplish it effectively would be forced sterilization of the stupid, which would be utterly immoral. Want to make people smarter? Look first at the educational system. Most people are not nearly as smart as they could be, if only they were taught how to think. (And, I'd add (redundantly) -- how to think for themselves.) The public school system is a brain-killer. So one thing to do is to support alternatives to it... there are a number of good private schools which can always use support (financial, moral, or word-of-mouth). In the long run, I fully support genetic modification. If/when scientists figure out how to make children smarter, stronger, more attractive, etc., it should definitely be an option open to parents. The current moves against all sorts of genetics research, whether it be GE foods or stem cells, will develop over time into a blockade against research into improving humans. If your interest is more in working toward humans with greater potential intelligence, take action now in support of the current research in this field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Hmm, where to begin on this. I was wondering if anyone believes eugenics, if applied in a manner most would accept as humane and ethical, would be a good idea.There are some problems with this question. First, and foremost, are we talking about a Nazi-style program forced onto unwilling people? Or are we talking about individuals using science and medicine to have smarter kids? Second, popularity or voting doesn't determine morality. Right is right, even if 99% of people don't like it, and wrong is wrong even if 99% of people support it. Third, good--to whom? I think most parents want the best for their kids. I don't think this should be illegal on the grounds that it is "playing god" or that it somehow connotes a Nazi dictatorship. I found out that IQ is mostly genetic and that this is why I personally was not as successful as many others. My personal theory is that one's genes can be a limit to one's intelligence, but certainly they are not an automatic guarantee. i.e. some people have more potential than others, but many people fail to live up to one's potential. ...felt resentful at how smarter people took for granted their higher intellect without really appreciating it.I hope you recognize such resentment as envy and understand why it's inappropriate. But to answer your point, I think at some level everyone takes for granted their existence. I am male and 6'1'" tall. There are surely many males who are much shorter who would love to be that tall, and there are even some females who wish they were male. What am I to do for such people? How am I to even consider them? The consensus among the smart is that it is good to have stupid people and that they deserve to be as such and that they are needed to clean the toilets This may be a consenus among Keynesians, Marxists, and others who accept the zero-sum view of economics. It is not a correct view. It denies the entire progress of civilization for the past 200 years! In any case, people of average intelligence who have a consistent work ethic can do far more than clean toilets. ...everything can be taken to extremes, but it does not have to be.The "extremeness", i.e. consistency, to which an idea is taken does not tell us anything about whether the idea is good or evil. The idea that men should trade value for value should be taken to the absolute maximum extreme possible! The idea of murdering for money should not be practiced to any degree, even a "moderate" degree. Eugenics can be mild: we can encourage brighter people to have more children and the welfare class... We? Encourage? Sounds like a Nazi-style dictatorship. I'd like to live in a society in which there was not any "we" who could "encourage" me to obey whatever edict they currently felt I should obey. Why do you take for granted the existence of a welfare class? The productive class could, at any time, choose to stop paying welfare. As a non-White person, I of course don't support...The merit of an idea is not subjective based on one's race. Rational men of all colors should support certain ideas and reject others. ...smart people, regardless of race, is valued... What other people value, to the extent government allows them to value anything, is productivity. Intelligence without virtue or hard work is worthless--to me. Do you want to pay your money to a lazy, irrational slob who happens to have a 180 IQ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Galton Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 I too once used to be a die-hard Libertarian and thought that Libertarian morality was absolute and that all non-Libertarians were evil who deserved to be administered the death penalty by the American Federal Government. But I then realized that morality is subjective and Libertarianism was simply one of many morality systems. I still retain many Libertarian ideals, but also many non-Libertarian ones as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 But I then realized that morality is subjective and Libertarianism was simply one of many morality systems. This is off topic... if you want to discuss the supposed subjectivity of morality, you should do so in a thread about that topic. And I should warn you, Objectivism does not accept the subjectivity of anything... nor does it agree with libertarians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Galton Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 This is off topic... if you want to discuss the supposed subjectivity of morality, you should do so in a thread about that topic. And I should warn you, Objectivism does not accept the subjectivity of anything... nor does it agree with libertarians. I disagree. But thanks for your input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_Halley Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 You disagree about what? Do you disagree that this is off topic, or that Objectivism does not accept subjectivity, or that it disagrees with libertarians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Galton Posted April 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 You disagree about what? Do you disagree that this is off topic, or that Objectivism does not accept subjectivity, or that it disagrees with libertarians. That this is off topic. Someone responded to me that eugenics is unethical based on their objectivist morality system. So I responded that morality is subjective and that many ethical systems exist. According to some systems, eugenics would be unethical, while other systems would consider OPPOSING eugenics to be unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGD Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 ...that all non-Libertarians were evil who deserved to be administered the death penalty by the American Federal Government. You seem to be using libertariansim for Objectivism. This is wrong. But I'd like to know where any libertarian said non-libertarians deserve to be killed because their non-libertarians? This sound like a "religious paradigm." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 Hey guys, just a side note: you're familiar with the observation that people can flip directly back & forth from rationalism to empiricism, right? The usual pattern for it is they try to apply principles (to them, rules) in a floating, acontextual sort of way. The results are crazy, and so they give up on principles altogether. If you needed any inductive evidence for that, now you have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted April 11, 2004 Report Share Posted April 11, 2004 The only way to accomplish it effectively would be forced sterilization of the stupid, which would be utterly immoral. Mr. Galton: You did not say who responded to you, or on what their objection to eugenics was based. Did you read my post explaining why the term was too fuzzy to be used without clarifying precisely what one means by it? Did you read MinorityOfOne's post that, assuming eugenics means a Nazi-style dictatorship, it's immoral? If you have read both of those, and then condemn any notion of objective morality in favor of outright claiming morality is subjective, then I hope you realize that you're asking for a Nazi-style regime. Given that you've stated that you believe your own intelligence is mediocre, this would mean that you would be forced at gunpoint to submit to a vassectomy. Or, more consistent with the basic idea, simply killed outright. Who are you to argue--morality is subjective, and just because you feel that you don't want to be murdered doesn't mean that the murderers don't feel like killing you, or that society doesn't feel it would gain by your death! Subjective morality means that feelings, rather than reason, rule. Since everyone has different feelings, the man with the biggest gang to back his feelings will rule. Is this what you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Story Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 I was wondering if anyone believes eugenics, if applied in a manner most would accept as humane and ethical, would be a good idea. http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/eugenics There is nothing wrong with ->.voluntary choice<- to not pass on one's DNA. Also there is nothing wrong with, or at least should not be a law against, choosing or rejecting a mate based on DNA. But there should be no law enforcing eugenics. Survival of the fittest is enforced by nature on animals in the wild, but not on humans. So something like the above-described voluntary individual free-choice eugenics seems necessary to minimize bad genes in human DNA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.