Stupid People Shouldn't Breed
Long post with Ranting... Enjoy!
Eugenics is defined as the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating).
Let that sink in.
This science was explored and generally accepted in the first half of the 20th century in America, England and Germany. Law makers used scientific guidance to pass laws calling for the sterilization of criminals, the institutionalized, and anyone determined to exhibit "bad" genes. The Supreme Court upheld at least one sterilization law. This actually happened. Thousands were victims in America. Other eugenic tactics to deter mating of the lower classes and to stifle immigration were employed. Apparently this caught on too well in Nazi Germany, which could be said was the extreme culmination of this science. After WWII eugenics declined in popularity but continued on, and the ideas are still around today.
The idea behind eugenics seems to be based on the following logical progresison (from this popular article):
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."
Please reread that and formulate your own opinion. On the surface, it seems to make a strange sort of sense. In reality it's swiss cheese. Let me address each item:
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
To say that human intelligence is largely hereditary assumes that intelligence is testable. First of all, you cannot test human intelligence. Intelligence must always be tested using some context. It's impossible to distinguish in testing, knowledge from intelligence.
Also, I believe there is no limit to any individual's potential intelligence. Intelligence can be improved over time. The brain is adaptive. To have a world view that teaches that people have limits would be untrue and tragically suppressive for those who believed it.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
I don't think so. All that a civilization seems to require is cooperation and communication. However I will concede that intelligence is important, let's move on.
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.
First of all, it seems as though "civilization" is used as though it is a comparative utopia to the alternative. This may be conceptually true in most people's minds, but what is meant by civilization here? Note that the implication here is that civilization has no negative effects. What is the ultimate logical end of civilization? Consider if one end of the spectrum is the chaotic wilderness of anarchy. So the other end is bliss? Hardly. It is unemotional and Matrix-like. Think about that one.
But this is all besides the point. The real point is... fuck civilization. It is not the #1 priority of the human race. What is...? Survival. And guess what, civilization has only been a recent phenomenon in our genetic journey. It's working really well right now to ensure our survival. And guess what else? If it's working so well to ensure our survival, and a drop in the global IQ of the planet would drop our level of civilization. ...it will be corrected and the global IQ will go up again. That's because.... Evolution is still with us. It never left. It's a fact of life, and we are lifeforms. Period. And life only cares about one thing: survival, not civilization.
So my main point here is that to think in terms of protecting a civilization is nearsighted, and not honest with what is really the best for the human race in the long term. So what is beneficial to us in the long term? No one knows. So as long as we don't know, we may as well try to make things better in the near term, right? Ok, fine. However, do we really need more civilization? Is there a point at which more civilization is bad? Doesn't civilization just faciliate organized destruction (ie war)? Is the population better off? Maybe in the short term, but evolution will tell.
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.
Again intelligence is testable here. And does this last statement make sense? Hmm.
Let's say that people with low intelligence are predisposed somehow to breed. Let's say they have always been. Ok, so under this scheme, it is advantageous for the breeders to occasionally spit out intelectuals who are effectively sterile. This is obviously extreme, but the point is made, which is that intelligent people do not need to breed for low intelligence people to produce more intelligent offspring, as long as DNA can allow for it, and I submit it can and does.
Ok, but let's say that people with lower intelligence aren't less likely to mate, but they ARE less likely to not use contraceptives. Ok, so this means that intelligent people are not having as many kids. Hmm... so the solution seems to be in the intelectuals lap, so to speak. The supposedly intelligent people aren't procreating? Are they really that intelligent?
Ok, so maybe intelectuals don't want to increase the number of people on our already overpopulated planet. So this really boils down to a population control issue. That is a more worthy cause to address. Simple contraceptive education can prevent many of these accidental pregnancies, and level the playing field for everyone to get some play.
Intelligence all of a sudden has nothing to do with it, it's really a knowledge problem. And yes, having higher intelligence will leave you more likely to obtain contraceptive knowledge, but since equal education could solve the supposed slide of intelligence, it should be employed over other methods by eugeneticists.
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."
What the hell are they talking about? What's a "misery quotient"? Pseudo-science in action? What would Buddha say about the misery quotient?
Ok, so the standard of living, civilization, will decline if we don't do something. I get it. It does sound dreadful. Stupid people fucking with our gene pool. But guess what? It's not just our gene pool, it's theirs too. These believers need to get it through their thick skulls. Despite the delusions of enriched life and greater good this evil may offer, there is this whole problem of basic human rights. The right to fuck uncontrollably, be stupid, and use the power of the masses to add suffering to all. And if this endangers our survival, evolution will correct it.
If we gloss over the rest of the rhetorical carnage, the fact remains, people have the right to do what they please, and it is the result of civilization that people have the unholy means to initiate policies for the supposed good of all that strip basic rights away from members of their own species. This civilization sounds more like a dystopia to me, a misery quotient of 12.
http://www.eugenics.net/index.shtml
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
Eugenics is defined as the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating).
Let that sink in.
This science was explored and generally accepted in the first half of the 20th century in America, England and Germany. Law makers used scientific guidance to pass laws calling for the sterilization of criminals, the institutionalized, and anyone determined to exhibit "bad" genes. The Supreme Court upheld at least one sterilization law. This actually happened. Thousands were victims in America. Other eugenic tactics to deter mating of the lower classes and to stifle immigration were employed. Apparently this caught on too well in Nazi Germany, which could be said was the extreme culmination of this science. After WWII eugenics declined in popularity but continued on, and the ideas are still around today.
The idea behind eugenics seems to be based on the following logical progresison (from this popular article):
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."
Please reread that and formulate your own opinion. On the surface, it seems to make a strange sort of sense. In reality it's swiss cheese. Let me address each item:
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.
To say that human intelligence is largely hereditary assumes that intelligence is testable. First of all, you cannot test human intelligence. Intelligence must always be tested using some context. It's impossible to distinguish in testing, knowledge from intelligence.
Also, I believe there is no limit to any individual's potential intelligence. Intelligence can be improved over time. The brain is adaptive. To have a world view that teaches that people have limits would be untrue and tragically suppressive for those who believed it.
2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization.
I don't think so. All that a civilization seems to require is cooperation and communication. However I will concede that intelligence is important, let's move on.
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.
First of all, it seems as though "civilization" is used as though it is a comparative utopia to the alternative. This may be conceptually true in most people's minds, but what is meant by civilization here? Note that the implication here is that civilization has no negative effects. What is the ultimate logical end of civilization? Consider if one end of the spectrum is the chaotic wilderness of anarchy. So the other end is bliss? Hardly. It is unemotional and Matrix-like. Think about that one.
But this is all besides the point. The real point is... fuck civilization. It is not the #1 priority of the human race. What is...? Survival. And guess what, civilization has only been a recent phenomenon in our genetic journey. It's working really well right now to ensure our survival. And guess what else? If it's working so well to ensure our survival, and a drop in the global IQ of the planet would drop our level of civilization. ...it will be corrected and the global IQ will go up again. That's because.... Evolution is still with us. It never left. It's a fact of life, and we are lifeforms. Period. And life only cares about one thing: survival, not civilization.
So my main point here is that to think in terms of protecting a civilization is nearsighted, and not honest with what is really the best for the human race in the long term. So what is beneficial to us in the long term? No one knows. So as long as we don't know, we may as well try to make things better in the near term, right? Ok, fine. However, do we really need more civilization? Is there a point at which more civilization is bad? Doesn't civilization just faciliate organized destruction (ie war)? Is the population better off? Maybe in the short term, but evolution will tell.
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.
Again intelligence is testable here. And does this last statement make sense? Hmm.
Let's say that people with low intelligence are predisposed somehow to breed. Let's say they have always been. Ok, so under this scheme, it is advantageous for the breeders to occasionally spit out intelectuals who are effectively sterile. This is obviously extreme, but the point is made, which is that intelligent people do not need to breed for low intelligence people to produce more intelligent offspring, as long as DNA can allow for it, and I submit it can and does.
Ok, but let's say that people with lower intelligence aren't less likely to mate, but they ARE less likely to not use contraceptives. Ok, so this means that intelligent people are not having as many kids. Hmm... so the solution seems to be in the intelectuals lap, so to speak. The supposedly intelligent people aren't procreating? Are they really that intelligent?
Ok, so maybe intelectuals don't want to increase the number of people on our already overpopulated planet. So this really boils down to a population control issue. That is a more worthy cause to address. Simple contraceptive education can prevent many of these accidental pregnancies, and level the playing field for everyone to get some play.
Intelligence all of a sudden has nothing to do with it, it's really a knowledge problem. And yes, having higher intelligence will leave you more likely to obtain contraceptive knowledge, but since equal education could solve the supposed slide of intelligence, it should be employed over other methods by eugeneticists.
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."
What the hell are they talking about? What's a "misery quotient"? Pseudo-science in action? What would Buddha say about the misery quotient?
Ok, so the standard of living, civilization, will decline if we don't do something. I get it. It does sound dreadful. Stupid people fucking with our gene pool. But guess what? It's not just our gene pool, it's theirs too. These believers need to get it through their thick skulls. Despite the delusions of enriched life and greater good this evil may offer, there is this whole problem of basic human rights. The right to fuck uncontrollably, be stupid, and use the power of the masses to add suffering to all. And if this endangers our survival, evolution will correct it.
If we gloss over the rest of the rhetorical carnage, the fact remains, people have the right to do what they please, and it is the result of civilization that people have the unholy means to initiate policies for the supposed good of all that strip basic rights away from members of their own species. This civilization sounds more like a dystopia to me, a misery quotient of 12.
http://www.eugenics.net/index.shtml
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/
posted by flowbeus at 8:46 PM
1 Comments:
Moron
Post a Comment
<< Home