[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Plethon

1. I see the whole Agrippa's project as somehow utopian, I don't think it is realizable. He shuns violence, that's good, but I don't think the bulk of people would ever become so "enlightened", as to willingly accept these measures.

As I put it, its for the best of their own offspring and most people, if being educated the right way and feel the social and moral pressure, will for sure act accordingly. I dont reject force, I just reserve it to more desperate or drastic situations and measures

2. Most important of all, science of genetics hasn't that much progressed, as to make such a plan viable at all. It is questionable if it would ever progress so much. There are recently news that geneticists found out that the the strucure of DNA is a lot more complex than previously believed. I am utterly sceptical as to the eventuality of this plan ever to be able to be carried out, as outlined by Agrippa, seen from purely technical aspect.

Today I would concentrate merely on two aspects if dealing with the autochthonous Europid population:
-) Prenatal selection and Eugenic consultations to avoid known defects like Trisomy 21, haemophilia, cystic fibrosis, Marfan syndrome, amentia and the like.
-) The revival of family, childen, value of blood and the group, with a special treatment and help for those families and bloodlines which show positive traits or proved to be of exceptional value because of (most likely or proven) inherited traits
-) Punishment, in extreme cases sterilisation, for those lower level variants which, though not being able to nourish their children and seem to have no desirable traits, still reproduce themselves. Especially if they refuse to participate in the free Eugenic programs for defect and negative trait prevention, which could be, in such cases, considered a serious crime actually.
-) Social programs, education and socio-economic reforms to help individuals to use as much of their potential and living decent lives, while being ready to do something for the group, including to found healthy families and participating in Eugenic programs voluntarily.

3. I agree with Milesian that crass materialism cannot bring cure to the ills of the human society. It can only alleviate some of its problems, but not solve them all in satisfactory manner. Human relations are far too complex to be reduced to purely mechanical causes, which could be handled with the help of purely technical solutions. (My perspective, like Milesian's, being theistic, someone could accuse me of bias, but that's topic for some other discussion.

The reduction to sheer Materialism without higher moral and content, nor without super-individual considerations is what Liberalcapitalism is, philosophically, to a large degree about, though again, in its core their is a pseudo-religious aspect somewhat akin to Jewish and Calvinist ways of thinking which promote some sort of perverted individual freedom and other people's exploitation as some sort of predetermined superiority in the free market shaped and controlled by some god like "invisible hand" which is the only justice, even more just than human ethic and group oriented considerations, which is ridiculous and an abstruse perversion of human value and dignity.

This perverted view on "individual freedom" actually allows the control, manipulation and exploitation of human individuals for the sheer lust for profits and power of a plutocratic oligarchy which has no higher morals and goals.

So finally, I doubt there is any sort of purely materialistic view on things, because in the end, part of your interpretation will always, and have always to go beyond the material facts as they are. F.e. one could indeed argue that the biological degeneration and increased human dependence on modern techniques and genetically caused suffering of masses being "justified" in a perverted perception of what "natural selection" is about, namely to do nothing but watching it, even if you die yourself - if your group or species dies, just watching it, dumber like an ape, while it happens.

But the positive view on things can be related immediately to the Eugenic perspective which argue that there is indeed a problem and insufficiences, but the first question we should raise is not "why god made us that way" or "if there is something good in idiocy or being crippled", but how we can make things better in the world we are living in, for us and future generations.

4. Cirrus put it right that genetics is not everything and I very much agree with that. There is much in environment and personal choices. I've known twins entirely different from each other in just about everything, except for their outer looks.

Are they really? I often heard people saying, "X and Y are so different", but in the end they were just in the same psychological category, but expressed their inner tendencies in a different, milieu adapted way. But still, genes determined even that they would be at the extreme ends of - superficially - antagonistic ends of a spectrum. In reality their extremism in some traits was just the result of their inherited similarity because more average individuals wouldnt have reacted as extreme in neither direction (f.e. extreme political left and right, extremely clean or indifferent about appearance etc.).

Another example would be two twins which try to be very similar or to be very different as individuals in some sort of individual justification or collective identity. This can have many reasons again, but genetic causes play in if its about different reactions to different environments. Like I said, especially the upper limits are determined.

And of course, talking about such "very different" twins, we always speak about the exceptions, because the rule is something else...

Finally I'm social oriented and always promoted economic reforms and social programs, "Euphenic" programs if you want so. One has always to consider both aspects, the genetic and milieu.