My argumentation in favour of an Eugenic policy

[Agrippa]

Because of this debate:
Future evolution of human appearance

and comment:

Originally Posted by Plethon

While I don't agree with you at all and oppose eugenics and social Darwinism, my perspective being theistic (but, of course, I am not Creationist in the American sense of word), I would ask you to elaborate, which concrete eugenic measures would you propose with the goal of racial betterment?

I post a large part of what I wrote in the biodiversityforum, just as an introduction to my ideas about Eugenics:

I'm all for Eugenic programs, but prefer programs which motivate and educate people, give them free access to medical and prenatal medicine and inform them about the advantages of selection - or sometime in the future of correction of embryos.
Forced only if its absolutely necessary, so if its impossible to get effective programs and real positive results by free programs alone - what I doubt, since once a society would propagate it and giving all people the option - for free and with all advantages, while it would get worse and worse for those which refuse - even without real punishment, it will for sure be enough to encourage the majority.
Only complete idiots and religious fanatics will refuse on the long term. For forced measures I'm therefore rather not, and if only in the case of seriously defected and irrational individuals.

The old 19th and 20th century Eugenic programs were primitive, and forced sterilisation is not the main option I have in mind if thinking about modern and human Eugenic programs obviously. I would reserve such measures for idiots who dont want to use the modern methods they could get for free in my system and reproduce like animal like without any planning. After the first defect children they gave birth to its time to do something.
Concerning whats better or worse, well, I wrote about that at length in other threads. Crucial is the book comparison, if you see a human individuals genome like a book, most serious defects are just wrong letters in it. This is the first and most important target to eliminate. Its about clearly pathological and clearly negative traits like serious mental or organic deficits, tendency towards extreme obesity etc.
So about traits which are definitely outside of the norm without having any real benefit now and with very high certainty in the future neither.
The next level is to talk about traits which are not pathological, but negative for an individuals development and for the group, this would be f.e. about individuals with sociopathic tendencies, very egoistic-materialistic behaviour - if one would find genes responsible for such social defects.
So this would be about traits which might be already in the "tolerance norm", but are not in the "good norm". The variation in the good norm can be kept without too much interference, but to encourage highly desirable couples to get more children than the average and vice versa.
Speaking about individuals which would be both great minds and having a great body, being physically versatile, attractive, intelligent, have good personality traits which make them good group members with a low tendency towards crimes because of low-base motives, towards acting sociopathic, unplanned, exploiting other group members constantly for low-base motives etc.
On the long term one could correct - not select embryos and using modern techniques to give humans updates. F.e. a gene which makes humans immune for HIV or Malaria without having negative effects - if such a solution would be possible (after all possible effects were considered and small test programs in areas which really need it), one could spread it throughout the population to get rid of one diseases with one small step rather than making complex and expensive programs to keep people healthy which will finally have never the same effect and make people "addicted" to access to highly developed industries and high-effort programs for life.

The USA had a huge eugenics program during the early 1900s. The director, who advocated sterilizing people with epilepsy, developed epilepsy later in his life. Some of the advocates of eugenics might develop conditions such as Alzheimer's Disease or Parkinson's Disease down the road.

Its even worse, since what might be recessive or not even present in you, might come up in your children. Therefore genetic screening is the only effective method if dealing with such defects, even more so since many carriers might be highly valuable individuals otherwise, beside small "typos" in their genome.
Much more problematic on the long run are those genomes which are "bad books". Just imagine, you can still learn a lot and having fun reading a book which has on 100 pages 50 errors - if the content is great. But what about a perfectly printed and orthographically correct written book which is uninteresting and boring, has nothing to offer and finally just uses space which could be used by a better one in your bookcase? In the past the first case could be more problematic than the latter - since one defect gene could mean a lot of problems, even lethal effects. But in the future its mainly about if the whole genome is valuable and has something positive to offer, potential for individual and collective development.

Eugenics would end up a big circle jerk of middle aged white men with a lot of money

If I'm not all in favour of Eugenics in some cases, its partly because of certain considerations. The main one is the current system and societies in the West, which is a problem, even a defect itself.
As long as we have such a defected financial capitalist system controlled by plutocrats, we never know what they will do, just to stay in power and maximising their profits.
If Eugenic programs dont consider the greater whole and the best for the individuals in an utilitarian sense, it might be still better than no Eugenic programs at all, with the only exception of plutocrats breeding sociopathic managers for their plantagements and degenerated slave variants as their minions.
In a positive and social oriented system all medical treatments and Eugenic options should be free for all and to participate in school in "Eugenic education" - mainly associated with biology - should be mandatory, as should be regular programs on TV and ads, mandatory programs for young adults if they want to have full scale social benefits and help etc. So it would be in any case a collective goal, namely to have better, healthier and happier individuals as well as more effective and higher developed society. Not just to give the option to use modern methods just in the hands of those which can pay for it...to even think that way is rather a symptome of our degenerated current system.
If a family has the concern that a defect of some grandparent might re-appear in the next generation or something like that, it should be self-evident that they should get the help, since thats the best for this family and for the group on the long run.
If assuming that the technological progress will go on the same pace as in the last decades - we're still at the beginning.

It would allow those which are not fully ruined genetic scum to:
a) Get the best children possible from their genome.
b) Raise them as equals with more potential and chances in a true community with a better spirit and more social care for all of those with good will at least.
On the long run there might be still social differences, but no true problem cases and no poor-disadvanted fully left behind, both because of the Eugenic and Euphenic (bio-policy and social policy) measures. Who wants to be a born asocial, dwarf, idiot, criminal, paedophile, cripple?
Only those with crippled minds.
There are genes which have their fair share if its about defects and negative traits, as they have a fair share if its about positive and desirable traits, both for individuals and the group. Eugenic policies just mean to spread the good and limit the bad ones.
Otherwise there would be a need for real natural selection with a focus on group selective pressures like f.e. in the Late Neolithicum of Europe. Since modern civilisation not just eliminated those positive selective pressures, but allowed the opposite, the scum to procreate faster and with higher rates than the backbone and hope of the group, there is a need for balancing things out without falling back into primitive and suffering times, or even more, to make it better - faster - planned.
The higher developed man was the result of difficult challenges he faced, selective pressures working on his ancestors. But it is the logical result, that with his progressing development, the advanced human mind will find ways to eliminate the hardness and a large part of the selective pressures which formed him.
This allows the negative elements to profit from the achievements of the positive elements, which were largely the result of the strong competition and positive selection, which is the root of dysgenic trends and contraselection.
In the Liberal Western world the more advanced people have even less children, which mean while the number of negative elements and defects in the genpool increases, the positive ones decrease.
But still a lot of the (autochthoneous European) lower class elements have positive traits, just not the fortunate better combination which is simply more common in the upper classes. So what we need is simply to screen the genome of those with genetic potential for their best traits and eliminating all defects and negative traits.
F.e. even a medium intelligent, short and medium attractive person with a heart disease might have the potential genetic combination for a highly intelligent, taller, above average attractive and fully healthy child. This would be about a large number of genes.
In the distant prehistoric past he might have had 10 children of which just the better combination would have survived in the Europe of the Late Neolithicum. This was better than what we have now from a biological standpoint, but it was still far from being ideal with all the suffering of both the failed as well as the surviving children and the fact, that even if the better combination survived, the chances for the best or at least still better genome was seldomly reached.
But thats possible in the near future and its the future of mankind. First eliminating serious defects, then going on to spread positive genes, last the possibility of "genetic updates" - f.e. HIV and Malaria-resistance hardwired in the genes.
What an idiocy to just caring for and treating symptoms, the diseases and problem cases present, while ignoring the reason, which is very often in the genome of the given person.
This irrationality is only explainable by irrational, largely religiously influenced prejudices and fallacies, especially if the approach is a human, planned and effective one. Its not about sterilising teens which are drunk at times or something like that *lol*
Thats like talking about "how horrible the first surgeries were" and taking that as a reason for being against surgeries of all kinds, even though the methods and possibilities are now much more sophisticated and effective.

Originally Posted by Mike the Jedi

And what happens when the primitive and infantile types are bred out of the human gene pool? Then the "progressives" will start competing.

First they should live in a more rational, social, stable, just and long term as well as group oriented, utilitarian society. The competition present should happen largely by the highest elite evaluating which traits are the most desirable ones and proved to be the most effective for the individual's and group's development in lets say the last 2 generations.
Those traits should be spread in the genpool and so on and on and on...
There is no reason to fully eliminate less desirable combinations, they should just live outside of the centres, being excluded from the political leadership and social elite of the centres and having no influence on geopolitical decisions. But I would reserve large areas for those who dont want to live that way. This would be some sort of positive selection too, namely to get rid of those which are not cooperative. And one could look at this "side societies" and how they are doing on their own, probably one could still learn something and if they would do something interesting, positive, one could think about implementing this feature in the centres too.
Its always about evaluating whats best for the group and individuals on the long run. There is no other rule than that. But obviously less developed groups of people shouldnt have the power to use modern techniques for raging wars or destroying ressources which could be of importance for my group or higher mankind or our species and ecosystems survival as a whole.
I prefer some San living as hunter gatherers in the Kalahari before irrational and biologically as well as culturally retarded groups of people being ready to threaten my groups well being and survival or even doing harm to the species as a whole. And be it just by constricting those which are of good will, rational and led by higher idealism (rationalised-group oriented Idealism), which should be a precondition for any leading position in a good social order.
If my ideal society would exist only in lets say half of Europe, but not the rest of the world, thats ok as well, as long as the rest of the world does nothing to threaten the well being and long term development of this areas.
I would offer other groups to join the system, but its volontary, as its for individuals which can decide to leave. Like with volontary Eugenic programs, its about the majority, as long as the majority in the crucial areas and if its about the crucial measures participates, there is no reason for force.
If f.e. some want to live in Islamic societies - well, as long as they dont threaten world climate, ressources and our ecosystem-nature as a whole, they can do what they want - outside of the new system.
Since they would fall back further and further, this is no issue really. Those who dont participate will be not even a shadow of a serious competitor on the long run anyway...

In my case I preffer a more democratic idea: genetical screening.
Let's the father decide what genes theirs children will carry.

Agreed and not agreed. Parents should decide, but rather in certain limits. F.e. it would be ok if the parents want to have a "somewhat taller or shorter", "blue or brown eyed", "musical or mathematical gifted" child after screening. Thats ok.
However, if parents decide they want to give birth to a crippled, ugly, sick, dwarfish idiot, thats a problem, even more so if they expect society to pay for all the surgeries and treatments, all the energy, work of better people and ressources could be used much better than throwing it away.
So if they want to have such a child like others want to have a pet and pay for everything, I might even accept that, but they will be excluded from most social benefits and all higher ranking positions of the group. Outcastes. Most likely only religious nuts or emotional weaklings would act that way anyway.

A couple is mentally and physically superior, and they're very wealthy. A genetic test shows that they have "defective genes". Should they be sterilized?

No. Obviously if they have such great traits, they must have great genes too. One just has to make sure their offspring doesnt get the defective genes, but just the good ones, and thats what I mean with modern human Eugenic methods which work mostly prenatal.
In the past one would have had to try - selection after birth if being visible in the first hours of the childs existence. If not, its more problematic, then it would have largely depend on the quality of the parents. If they really are such great and desirable beings overall, the risk of the defect might be lower than the risk of losing the bloodline as a whole.
Its always a cost : benefit calculation in nature and so it should be in reasonable politics. Finally we are very lucky now, because barbaric measures like infanticid and sterilisation of otherwise valuable individuals is no longer necessary, we are able to target genes rather than living, developed individuals and personalities. And with every step forward this will be more exact and clear, in the end targeting not even whole embryos, but mainly the genes themselves with genetic therapy for the germlines.

those who are wealthy enough will certainly try to elude the system.

Dont confuse wealthy with valuable. In my system one would consider their social conscience and Idealism too. If dealing with egoistic sociopaths with psychopathic tendencies, we deal with very dangerous traits, even more dangerous than a cohort of idiots. Such individuals might be targeted first actually - at least in the way described above, by eliminating possible genetic reasons for sociopathic, asocial-destructive and corrupted, criminal behaviour because of base motives.

It would sooner or later lead to divisons and atrocities

Well, depends on the leadership for which the strictest of all biological and social selection would work on the long run, to just let the most intelligent, rational idealists with a character formed by integrity to the top.

Just a question, Agrippa: would you let yourself be sterilized if it was found out that you carried "defective" genes (or at least if society judged that they were defective)?

If a society of asocial sociopaths and corrupted minds would like to get rid of people like me which are not as materialisic and flat minded, I would obviously not.
But if dealing with a reasonable approach and leadership, it would largely depend on the situation, namely whether the defective trait could be eliminated and the good ones survive or not. Like described above. If only lowest level individuals would be the product of a potential reproduction of mine, even if considering modern methods and measures over generations, I wouldnt reproduce at all.
I have my good and bads, but overall my potential children should be able to contribute something of great value. Its relative too, in a higher level end society I dream of, many of those being today still average or above would be lower level then...

What is good for you and the group?

To begin with: Able to survive, able to choose.

If anyone in the end just wants to be happy and if he only knows or thinks to know what makes him happy, then the best thing you can do is to live anyone as free as possible to do what makes or he thinks it makes him happy.

Agreed, as long as this pursue of individual happiness doesnt harm the potential of the group and higher level individuals, its even a goal of mine to give every individual as much options as possible. So let even the happy idiot be happy in a nice sanatory, why not if we can afford it, have the ressources and no serious harm is done.
But if its a hard choice, the more valuable individuals and the group always comes first. Crucial is the education and enlightenment of the people, so that the more valuable ones will do whats the best for themselves, their family-bloodline and the group as well as species for free, see it as some sort of self-evident duty.

Originally Posted by The Hypocrite

Agrippa, there's a better solution than eugenics for your distaste for the ones with more inept genes: ending social welfare. The parents will bear the burden of raising such a kid as described by your example, harming noone outside themselves (and they probably won't consider themselves harmed, see Lorenzo's Oil).
Any of our current tastes now (taller men, thinner women with big breasts, blonde hair, etc) might be a fetish, with no clear vantage to our adaptation, like the chinese of old had for small feet or the mexicans had for women with body hair. Are we as a society better than Mother Nature to decide who gets to live or not? Or is this decision to achieve eugenics a part of Mother Nature, some natural instinct? I'm not really sure about the answer.

To begin with, a social policy and welfare system is a question of moral and decency as well as important for individual well being, security in life, group's development and stability.
An ideology or state stating that welfare as such a is a bad thing, is most likely Liberalcapitalistic and Liberalcapitalism in itself is the most contraselective and dysgenic force.
The real result of ending welfare is the more intelligent-planned individuals having less children, while those which have convictions, often superstitious religious ones, or are simply unable and too low level for a planned life or even sexuality - family planning, will get more children.
Not to forget that, like I said, being wealthier is no equivalent for being more valuable for the group, even the contrary can be true if comparing a ruthless and anti-group oriented scalper and plutocrat with a decent school teacher or officer f.e.
Furthermore my goal is not more suffering for anyone, not even seriously defected individuals. Its also mercy, but more rational and far sighted, long term oriented mercy and humanity which must lead to human and modern Eugenic measures.
You speak of "mother nature", but there is no "mother nature", just the ecoystems of this planet and evolutionary forces. By studying speciation and evolution, we can see that a lot of suffering and one sided development leads in the end to nothing else but a dead end. This was even true for Hominid groups and still is to a certain degree.
Yes, humans will be better off as individuals and as a group if planning their own future.
I spoke about a conservative approach and, in certain limits, free decisions of parents. This means that I dont want to eliminate variation, but just reduce negative variation and increase the numbers of positive, versatile-advantageous allels in the genpool.
We dont talk about cultural fetishism, which concentrated on one sided traits, but objectively optimal or close to optimum trait combination of lets say hormonal-psychic, physical-performance and appearance, physiological-resistance etc.
One can say that no physical trait should be maximised beyond a certain limit which being determined by our species characteristics. But exactly this happened in certain cultures with degenerated or decadent beauty standards which went too far away from the aspects of health and performance.
The optimal physical combination f.e. is the balanced result of the trias of performance-health-attractiveness.
Nothing which is sick or of lower performance for the individuals and group should be promoted (like supersized unnatural breasts, extremely small feet, very short legged, too skinny or fat, hairy-masculinised women etc. to give some examples for females).
The ideal being determined by the goal of a versatile and dominant human form which would be superior and advantageous in most situations from prehistoric times to modernity. This is actually not that difficult, because for the most part, those which were superior as farmer-warriors and mobile pastoralists in the Late Neolithicum, Bronze Age and Iron Age of Europe are still the superior forms today.
They excell in racially progressive traits, with their tendency towards certain psychic traits and qualities, in important sports (decathletes, biathletes, triathletes etc. being prime examples), military, science, as well as by balanced attractiveness.
Only planned and modern Eugenic measures with social responsibility and respect for the individuals as far as possible will reduce suffering and increase the potential of individuals as well as the group. There is no reasonable alternative to this. Everything else would be a crime.
My motto if its about individuals is: As human (sensitive and amicable) as possible, as hard as necessary for the majority of people and the group as a whole.

[Cirrus]

I disagree with your views :

Sexual selection and evolution are natural phenomenons : I don't see why we should need a human intervention in it. Nature works for itself.
Human standards and benchmarks are, by definition, imperfect and subjective. Your idea of a progressive humankind is not the same as the one of another observer, even with an elitist point of view. This is why such program is dangerous. We can't base the future biological evolution of humankind on the vision of a group of humans in a certain under a certain context.

Morever, I highly doubt that paedophilia or selfishness, for exemple, are determined by genetics.

And obviously, I think that not only religious fanatics or idiots would refuse such a program. In fact, the only reason for me to make such a thing would be if humankind was endangered (which is still not the case).

I think that, as humans, we need, in our societies, to support the better elements, most intelligent and effective, but I don't see why we should go further. We must focus on political, cultural and sociological actions in our countries.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I disagree with your views :

Sexual selection and evolution are natural phenomenons : I don't see why we should need a human intervention in it. Nature works for itself.

Sure, nature and evolution "work for themselves", thats exactly the problem, they dont work in favour of us. They dont secure our survival, our happiness, health, further ability for development or anything else, because if the lowest scum of mankind will be preferred by "natural evolution" and in the end a degenerated "something" will die out because being placed on a dead end its just the course of evolution and humans failed because they had a brain and consciousness and didnt used it to adapt themselves in an intelligent way and by considering biological necessities and opportunities. So to not allow Eugenic measures would be the failure of mankind and I'm on the side of those which try to prevent this failure - beside some others - which would ruin mankind and taking its great chances for further development.

Human standards and benchmarks are, by definition, imperfect and subjective. Your idea of a progressive humankind is not the same as the one of another observer, even with an elitist point of view.

I'm not saying that I must be right in every small detail, but on the other hand, if its about a reasonable, intelligent and well-educated individual with a collective ethic and individualist moral and practical considerations, there will be a STRONG overlap of my view and his, with rather minor picky details being disputed.

If its an "elitist Liberalcapitalist" - well, thats a variant which to bred out is part of my Eugenic program.

This is why such program is dangerous. We can't base the future biological evolution of humankind on the vision of a group of humans in a certain under a certain context.

Well, most aspects I promote are fairly obvious if you think about it objectively. Point to a mistake of mine if you like.

Morever, I highly doubt that paedophilia or selfishness, for exemple, are determined by genetics.

They might be - but thats the job of our scientists and psychologists to get to know it, and once we know it, we can target it. Thats my plan and not to hunt something we dont even know to put it that way.
I perfectly know and am absolutely confident in what I think has to be eliminated and get rid off, but which method is the best in each case is something we have to research and some details are debatable, as well as there is positive variation - which is not viewed as ideal by me, but has a place to put it that way. My conservative appraoch says:
Eliminate only whats for sure and promote whats good, everything in between can be largely left untouched and exist as long as we know better.

And obviously, I think that not only religious fanatics or idiots would refuse such a program. In fact, the only reason for me to make such a thing would be if humankind was endangered (which is still not the case).

Well, give an ape a gun and you shouldnt wonder if he shoots you. This mankind as it is and large masses of people which exist in our currenct societies now are absolutely premature and not able to deal with the great opportunities and threats they are exposed to. Without improvement they will eliminate themselves or at least being unable to deal with future threats in an appropriate way. The case of Europeans now, which are unable to form collective forms of organisation and to fight for their own survival, or workers being unable to understand and fight the exploitative structure of Liberalcapitalism or the so called "social elite" to resist corruption and indoctrination through the small, absolutely greedy and irresponsible plutocratic oligarchy are proofs enough - even if minor systemic changes would correct that - for the dangerously low standard of mankind and the need for improvement.

I think that, as humans, we need, in our societies, to support the better elements, most intelligent and effective, but I don't see why we should go further. We must focus on political, cultural and sociological actions in our countries.

So if the biological elite of your country sacrifices itself, without having sufficient offspring, for the lowest elements of your population which reproduces sufficiently without considering higher goals and morals, or even thinking about their existence on a higher level at all, you think that this would be alright?

But this will always happen in modern countries. The only way to prevent that is strict kin selection in premodern warlike societies in which only GROUPS of high level individuals profited biologically by being dominant and superior.

How do you want to "support" the better elements if not by Eugenic programs? And why should an elite family give birth to a defected child for which they, because of irrational ideas, care probably even more than for a healthy one?

What I said is exactly that those people must get rid of such false morals and embrace a biosocial and collective ethic which will help either themselves, their future healthy children and the group as a whole. So again, what should be wrong about that?

[Milesian]

I only had the chance to skim through this, but it smacks of materialism and scientism, Agrippa.

I propose an adoption of the adage - Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword.
Things should generally apply only to those who are proponents of them.

Murderers should be murdered.
Liars should be lied to.
Abortionists should be aborted
Eugenicists should be subjected to Eugenics.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I only had the chance to skim through this, but it smacks of materialism and scientism, Agrippa.

I propose an adoption of the adage - Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword.
Things should generally apply only to those who are proponents of them.

Murderers should be murdered.
Liars should be lied to.
Abortionists should be aborted
Eugenicists should be subjected to Eugenics.

You know that this is a contradiction in itself, because everyone doing so would be subjected to this rule himself and in the end all must die going by that in a vicious circle

Additionally this argument is as intelligent as someone saying to you as an Irish nationalist that you are intolerant and therefore shouldnt be tolerated by your fellow (pseudotolerant) Irish countrymen. How do you like such "great arguments"?

The question is always what to tolerate and what to help and promote. If you help and promote scum, you will harvest scum and with every generation potential of your people and mankind will be lost for nothing but an irrational moral which goes against life. Life is not the life of an individual alone, but of the collective and bloodlines as well. If an individual doesnt serve its kin and group, its pure mercy to keep him alive. I'm merciful, but I have no interest in negative traits and variants spread.

Idealism without materialism is useless and vice versa - moral without knowledge is useless and vice versa. The best source of knowledge we can gain through scientific approaches and thats why I won't be offended by what you said, but want to correct it in the way described:
I want a higher, rational Idealism which doesnt negate the reality of the material world and human life, what I refuse is either to have ideals without having an idea or to go after the material world without dignity and higher spirit to fight for the better even though you might wade through blood and dirt.

The true human of tomorrow will be the one who keeps his spirit and will not fade even if he wades through blood and dirt because he has a goal in mind which will burn in him like an eternal flame, namely to make the best out of what the world offered him and his kind.

[Marcus Marulus]

First of all, thank you, Agrippa, for this long post in which you tried to clarify your views on this matter, as the answer to my question.

As to its contents:

Even on the supposition that something like that would be desirable...

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.

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.

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.

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.

5. Agrippa's indictment of the liberal capitalistic society is entirely valid and I subscribe to it. Though not in the proposed solution...

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Agripa

This mankind as it is and large masses of people which exist in our currenct societies now are absolutely premature and not able to deal with the great opportunities and threats they are exposed to. Without improvement they will eliminate themselves or at least being unable to deal with future threats in an appropriate way. The case of Europeans now, which are unable to form collective forms of organisation and to fight for their own survival, or workers being unable to understand and fight the exploitative structure of Liberalcapitalism or the so called "social elite" to resist corruption and indoctrination through the small, absolutely greedy and irresponsible plutocratic oligarchy are proofs enough - even if minor systemic changes would correct that - for the dangerously low standard of mankind and the need for improvement.

There are two problems :
First, it seems to me that humankind has assured its survival. Then, I don't understand your first point : scientific progress don't seems to be stoped, the natality is controled, and the population more educated.
Then, it is true that the liberal-capitalist system makes huge damages in our societies, but I think it's another problem : a moral problem.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

So if the biological elite of your country sacrifices itself, without having sufficient offspring, for the lowest elements of your population which reproduces sufficiently without considering higher goals and morals, or even thinking about their existence on a higher level at all, you think that this would be alright?

But this will always happen in modern countries. The only way to prevent that is strict kin selection in premodern warlike societies in which only GROUPS of high level individuals profited biologically by being dominant and superior.

How do you want to "support" the better elements if not by Eugenic programs?

Like I said, I think that this problem should be resolved by political, cultural and sociological (human-like) programs. Because I think that a eugenic policy would be imperfect, subjective and even dangerous for us.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

What I said is exactly that those people must get rid of such false morals and embrace a biosocial and collective ethic which will help either themselves, their future healthy children and the group as a whole. So again, what should be wrong about that?

In fact, this program also hurt a certain idea of freedom I have.

[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.

[The Venetian]

The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell

by Marian Van Court

This article appeared in the Winter 2004 issue of The Occidental Quarterly

[English - pdf] | [Swedish - pdf] | [Dutch - pdf] | [Romanian - pdf]

The eleventh edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eugenics as "the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity." Most people draw a blank when they hear the word, or it conjures up images of swastikas and jack-booted Nazis. But eugenics has had a long history, extending back to ancient Rome and beyond.
Eugenics is concerned with the current direction of human evolution. Thousands of articles have been published in scholarly journals, tons of dirt have been sifted through with tiny brushes in search for skulls, vast amounts of grant money awarded to researchers, and many entire careers spent trying to discover how we evolved larger brains and greater intelligence up to the point of Homo sapiens, and this is a fascinating and worthwhile endeavor. But what is urgent, what is arguably the most important question facing our species, is where human beings are evolving right now. Are we evolving in a favorable direction, or an unfavorable one?
It's true that natural selection has virtually ceased to operate in many parts of the world today, but evolution continues because human reproduction is far from random. Just as history marches on indefinitely into the future, both in war and in peace, so, too, does evolution. Reproductive patterns of each generation shape the innate character of successive generations, whether for better, or for worse.
Most of us want to give our children as much as our parents gave us, preferably more. We want them to have the best possible education, and every advantage we can afford. We also hope to leave them a better world than the one we were born into. However, the most important legacy we can bequeath to our children is their own biological integrity: good health, high intelligence, and noble character. These traits go a long ways towards insuring their personal happiness and well-being. Taken collectively, these traits constitute the ability of a population to maintain and advance civilization - the most precious of human gifts - for without civilization, chaos reigns, "might makes right," and suffering abounds.
The focus of this paper will be on intelligence. Here's the argument, in a nutshell:
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.
1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

Scientists have found that identical twins separated at birth and raised apart are almost identical in IQ, despite the fact that they had totally different environments. 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, 19