It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
Urn

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
this seems to be the problem in a nut shell


Originally posted by revengeogmakhno


The thinking in our societies has to evolve before we can be trusted to start messing with the fundamentals of nature in a competent way. We are not sufficiently respectful and in harmony with nature.


i figure at the rate we're going, the human race (on average) will go nowhere but down hill, and societies "thinking" will never evolve to the point where we CAN be trusted with somthing like this...

on the other hand, if we try and apply eugenics to the human race, who knows what kind of pandora's box of horrors we'll be unleashing on ourselves...

sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ludwig Beethoven
Here is a chart of the National IQ averages of 185 countries and their respective GDP: www.rlynn.co.uk... You will notice a general trend: the higher the IQ average, the higher the GDP.

Regards.


Fatal flaw in your thinking (clearly your intelligence is too low for you to be allowed to reproduce, please step up to the 'auto-nut-remover' and insert your delicate bits...)

www.fairtest.org...

Long-story made very short (I could find THOUSANDS of links and papers on this subject).. almost ALL IQ tests are depended on applied KNOWLEDGE.. even though they try not to be.

You see, if you were never taught how to add, asking questions based on arithmetic is unfair, similarly if you have a poor reading ability, several of the tests fall down. I have been given IQ test after IQ test as a result of being a 'gifted' individual and each one suffers the same flaws.

In the 20 or 30 tests I have taken so far, I have yet to see one where some prior knowledge didn't help me arrive at several (if not all) the solutions. That makes them knowledge tests and not intelligence tests.

Therefore, the correlation between IQ and social-standing stands to reason. You have forgotten one of the fundamental principals of observational science: "Correllation does not equate to Causation".

Have a good day, and please don't forget to use the Auto-Denutter-3000.

Osiris



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ludwig Beethoven
"1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary.

How do you figure? Two genius parents do not tend to produce genius children, at least not so far as I am aware. actual 'Idiots' probably do tend to produce "idiot' scale children, I'm sure.

Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created.

Since when? I'd agree that civilization requires a population of people that are not 'mentally deficient', but short of that this requirement of yours doesn't ring true.

When intelligence declines, so does civilization.

This doesn't seem to be correct at all, many civilizations have 'declined', but I've never heard of it being linked to a population wide decline in intelligence.


3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population.

And how is the 'highness' of a civilization measured? By the general welfare of its citizens perhaps?



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.

Demonstrate this.

Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline
This 'trend' is based on one data point. The current generation is supposedly less intelligent overall than the one that gave rise to it.



Logic and scientific evidence stand behind each statement listed above" (www.eugenics.net...).

The evidence, infact, does not support these assertions, and while a preliminary logic might seem to validate the idea that 'more smarts means more happiness', a more considered look at the issue doesn't seem to support it.



As an Asian-American, I support eugenics,

Then prepare to be sterilized in an effort to improve humanity.


as defined as "the improvement of human genetics." Of course, I support "humane" ways of carrying it out, such as genetic engineering, genetic screening, cloning, and laws preventing violent criminals from reproducing.

There is not demonstrated link between genetics and violence. Violent criminals do not have violent little criminal children.

Since I am Asian, I would like a "fair" program that does not "oppress" non-White Americans, such as myself.

And what in the world makes you think you are going to get it? The same people advocating a decline in 'intelligence' leading to a decline in society will also note a decline in intelligence and society when race-mixing occurs and will also note a definite decline in the quality of all 'non-white' civilizations. I think that the idea is preposterous, as equally as proposterous as your suggestions to 'improve humanity'. If there is a decline in intelligence in a society, then it can be rectified by a better education system. performance on intelligence tests and standardized tests conforms to education, not breeding.


So, what are your thoughts?

Killing people is bad. What you recommend will result in killing people.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by revengeogmakhno
Eugenics has been a recipe for murder and worse.


This is not a valid argument. Many things in the past resulted in "bad" things. Christianity let to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition which mostly targeted Jews. Atheism resulted in Russia's slaughter of 30 million Christians. Does this mean we should ban Christianity or atheism?

The rest of your arguments are invalid as well, you make great use of the slippery slope argument.

Regards.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Hello,


Sounds a lot like Nazi German propoganda


From www.infidels.org...

"Argumentum ad hominem

A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you.""



What I found particular amusing was your statement:

Wouldn't it be funny if your Eugenics idea scientifically decided that all people of Asian decent were susceptable to certain genetic flaws and none of you were allowed to reproduce (sterlized prior to puberty, in a very *humane* operation)..


Again, the faulty slippery slope argument. But aside from that, why do you assume the White man is in charge? Why not the non-White majority, which makes up 90% of the world, decide that Whites are genetically inferior and should all be sterilized or exterminated? I can flippantly say that you are a White supremacist for assuming the White man's will shall always prevail over the will of the non-White majority.


If you want to practice eugenics, do it the old way.. stop meddling with the lives of others, remove the 'caution, hot coffee' warning labels from cups of coffee and the 'pastic bags can suffocate children' and you'll be just fine...


Again, the government already interferes in our lives, that is the very purpose of the government, otherwise we would have anarchy.


I can't even believe you posted that... You should have read the article in the NY Times last week.. you sound *exactly* like that bull$$$$ that the Germans were pounding out just prior to WWII.


I once again repeat that the majority of American states had eugenics laws, as did most of Europe, Japan, and several South American Nations. Japan's last eugenics law in the book was repealed in 1995. Ancient spartans practiced eugenics, Jews have practiced eugenics for thousands of years, and today, China and India and Sweden have eugenics laws (Sweden offers financial incentives for college graduates to have more children). Germany was one of the last nations to start a eugenics program, and they got their ideas from the United States. So to say eugenics is just a National Socialist thing is incorrect.

Regards.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Intelligence is *not* the end all and be all.


I agree, but it's a very important aspect for success in a technologically advanced nation. But yes, that needs to be complemented with a strong education system.

But, the media and government never mention the genetics aspect because it is politically incorrect; all attention is given to the environment side. Poor academic performance is always blamed on a lack of funding, or bad teachers, or lack of moral fiber, or not allowing Christ into your heart or allowing the Ten Commandments in schools: genetics are never mentioned as being the source of poor performance.


Regards.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Ludwig Beethoven]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Ok lets say your little Eugenics thing happened I have a question for you. What would your Eugenics do with these two boys. We will call them Boy 1 and Boy 2.

Boy#1 suffered from dyslexia. He is a clear example of a person who would be labeled as learning disabled in today's educational system. His teachers think he is borderline retarded.

Do you make sure this person cannot have kids.

Boy#2

Suffers from ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ) Which is a genetic rapidly progressive fatal neuromuscular disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and the spinal cord.

Do you let this person have kids?


Would you have made sure both parents of these children couldnt have these kids in the first place.?






Boy #1 was Einstein
Boy #2 was Stephen Hawking

Your great Eugenics just made sure they were never born


www.hawking.org.uk...
www.einsteinmontessori.com... age&category=about_albert_einstein

[edit on 16-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ludwig Beethoven
Hello,

Again, the faulty slippery slope argument. But aside from that, why do you assume the White man is in charge? Why not the non-White majority, which makes up 90% of the world, decide that Whites are genetically inferior and should all be sterilized or exterminated? I can flippantly say that you are a White supremacist for assuming the White man's will shall always prevail over the will of the non-White majority.



Lots snipped for brevity... but here's the thing.. I'm not saying it would be a 'White man in charge'. I'm saying WHAT IF.. you seem to think if we go forward with something like this it will be used only to better man-kind..

What POSSIBLE grounds do you have to truly believe that. As a species we are inherently evil, just look at our HISTORY. If you want to disregard 1000s of years of misuse of technology for evil purposes, then go ahead, live in your ideal and misguided world and leave the rest of us, with a grasp on reality, alone.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Urn
this seems to be the problem in a nut shell


Originally posted by revengeogmakhno


The thinking in our societies has to evolve before we can be trusted to start messing with the fundamentals of nature in a competent way. We are not sufficiently respectful and in harmony with nature.


i figure at the rate we're going, the human race (on average) will go nowhere but down hill, and societies "thinking" will never evolve to the point where we CAN be trusted with somthing like this...

on the other hand, if we try and apply eugenics to the human race, who knows what kind of pandora's box of horrors we'll be unleashing on ourselves...

sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...


Again, the faulty slippery slope argument. Everything can lead to mass extermination. Should that mean we go back to living in caves? Should the atomic bomb never have been invented because of the concerns of hyper-sentimental Liberals, even though the bomb caused us to win World war 2?

Regards.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Hi there!


Long-story made very short (I could find THOUSANDS of links and papers on this subject).. almost ALL IQ tests are depended on applied KNOWLEDGE.. even though they try not to be.


From www.lrainc.com...

"The Meaning and Measurement of Intelligence

1) Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

2) Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.

3) While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).

4) The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold of mental retardation).

5) Intelligence tests are not culturally biased against American blacks or other native-born, English-speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather, IQ scores predict equally accurately for all such Americans, regardless of race and social class. Individuals who do not understand English well can be given either a nonverbal test or one in their native language."

Regards.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

There is not demonstrated link between genetics and violence.


Yes there is, the personality trait of psychopathology has a 50% heritability rate, and most violent criminals are psychopaths. Many politicians also test positive on psychopathology.


Violent criminals do not have violent little criminal children.


There is a positive correlation between violent parents and violent offspring.


If there is a decline in intelligence in a society, then it can be rectified by a better education system.


Incorrect, intelligence is 80% inherited.


Killing people is bad. What you recommend will result in killing people.


The faulty slippery slope argument again.

Regards.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
How are you!


Lots snipped for brevity... but here's the thing.. I'm not saying it would be a 'White man in charge'. I'm saying WHAT IF.. you seem to think if we go forward with something like this it will be used only to better man-kind..


What if an evil White man stole nukes and used it to vaporize all non-White Americans? What if an evil Whitey CEO of an American auto company implanted secret computer code in the cars for the brakes to fail on cars bought by non-White Americans? What if an evil White man CEO of a food company puts poison in foods that will be shipped to non-White communities in America? What if the government uses secret weather technology to deplete the ozone layer on top of Harlem and other black neighborhoods? Can you say schizophrenia?

Anyway, I think Dworkin says it best: "Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery. We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice in the face of the unknown."


What POSSIBLE grounds do you have to truly believe that. As a species we are inherently evil, just look at our HISTORY.


So you agree that humans are genetically violent, so what better way to remove violent genes from humanity than through eugenics?!


leave the rest of us, . . . alone.


I believe the anti-eugenics people should leave the world alone, and let the eugenicists, who are grounded in reality, take care of things.

Regards.



[edit on 16-1-2005 by Ludwig Beethoven]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   


Boy #1 was Einstein
Boy #2 was Stephen Hawking

Your great Eugenics just made sure they were never born




Let me ask you this: Let us say that for every 20 million people that are born with psychopathology (criminal personality trait), one becomes a great scientist. Does the contributions of that one scientist outweigh the societal problems of the 20 million psychopaths? 20 million psychopaths results in millions of murders, rapes, robbery, violent assaults, and business fraud. Should society put up with all these 20 million psychopaths and their criminal activity just because one of them will become a great scientist?

Regards.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ludwig Beethoven

There is not demonstrated link between genetics and violence.


Yes there is, the personality trait of psychopathology has a 50% heritability rate, and most violent criminals are psychopaths.

Please cite the source for this study. And also the study which shows that most violent criminals are psychopaths.



There is a positive correlation between violent parents and violent offspring.

Correlation and Causation are two distinct things however. How many children of violent criminals that had no contact with their bio-parents are also violent criminals? And how many of there adoptive siblings are also violent criminals? Indeed, the Jukes (or was it jenkins?) family was the sin qua non arguement for bad breeding and criminality. What people failed to take into account was that each generation was poorly educated and destitute.

nygdan
it can be rectified by a better education system.

Incorrect, intelligence is 80% inherited.
This does not address the matter of education. IQ scores vary primarily on upbriging and education. True, there are genetic components to intelligence. But if one wants to improve the general intelligence of a society, then education is the only method thats ever been shown to work.

The faulty slippery slope argument again.

Not precisely. True enough, if you were incharge of the eugenics program then it need not involve that. However, that is not likely to happen. Eugenics is a social movement. It only occurs along with forced sterilizations, at a minimum.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Please cite the source for this study. And also the study which shows that most violent criminals are psychopaths.


I already posted the heritability of criminality based on twin studies, scroll up to see my previous posts.

www.amazon.com...

The Psychopathology of Crime : Criminal Behavior as a Clinical Disorder
by Adrian Raine

"Editorial Reviews

From Book News, Inc.
Raine (psychology, U. of Southern California) synthesizes the growing body of knowledge on the biological basis of criminal behavior, and queries whether consistent criminal behavior can be considered a psychological disorder on the same level as depression and anxiety (a separate issue, she makes clear, from the high degree of other mental disorders among criminals). Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Product Description:
This lauded bestseller, now available in paperback, takes an uncompromising look at how we define psychopathology and makes the argument that criminal behavior can and perhaps should be considered a disorder. Presenting sociological, genetic, neurochemical, brain-imaging, and psychophysiological evidence, it discusses the basis for criminal behavior and suggests, contrary to popular belief, that such behavior may be more biologically determined than previously thought.

Key Features
* Presents a new conceptual approach to understanding crime as a disorder
* Provides the most extensive review of biological predispositions to criminal behavior to date
* Presents the practical implications of viewing crime as a psychopathology in the contexts of free will, punishment, treatment, and future biosocial research
* Includes numerous tables and figures throughout
* Contains an extensive reference list
* Analyzes the familial and extra-familial causes of crime
* Reviews the predispositions to crime including evolution and genetics, and the neuropsychological, psychophysiological, brain-imaging, neurochemical, and cognitive factors"

-------------------------------

Keep in mind that I said psychopathology is 50% genetic, the rest is environment, aka moral upbringing. I want to at least fix the genetic part, but we can compliment that with moral upbringing as well.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Ludwig Beethoven]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
heritability of criminality
Thats classic OK if I can prove in a study that Black people commit more violent crimes then White, Asians ect.. does that mean the have more criminal genes and should not be allowed to reproduce?

I would love to hear you answer this one

One more question how do you propose we look for this Criminal gene or whatever you call it.



[edit on 16-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIXOK if I can prove in a study that Black people commit more violent crimes then White, Asians ect


Actually, Africans do have the highest crime rate, according to FBI statistics, see home.comcast.net... while East Asians have a lower crime rate than Whites.


.. does that mean the have more criminal genes and should not be allowed to reproduce?


Professor J. Philippe Rushton can answer this for you: www.ssc.uwo.ca...

But, in either case, most Africans are law-abiding. Perhaps they may have a higher percentage of criminals, but still that is less than the overwhelming majority of Africans.

Regards.


[edit on 16-1-2005 by Ludwig Beethoven]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ludwig Beethoven
Let me ask you this: Let us say that for every 20 million people that are born with psychopathology (criminal personality trait), one becomes a great scientist.


No, no, no. A politician, not a scientist. How old are you, anyway?

Okay, Ludwig. We understand you are sociopathic (desirous of destroying the existing order of things), and so we sentence you to suffer your own design:

Trial by Darwinian combat.

No weapons or seconds will be allowed. You will fight to the death, unclothed, in a pit of mud laced with pathogens, mano-a-mano with a crazed, presumed inferior American Indian. Between rounds, you will be asked Jeopardy questions; the penalty for error, instant death by projectile.

Should you prevail, you will be placed in quarantine for thirty-five years to determine if the pathogens have compromised your immune system... then your DNA will be harvested for reproduction...


Oh, shoot man. I'm plagarizing the movie SOLDIER.

Got a better idea. You and me trade sisters. I like Asian chicks, maybe you like American Indians. No?

No? Okay, get in the mudpit mac. Its just you and me


Seriously, the best laid plans of Eugenicists are often ruined by pesky microbes. Diversity rules forever.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Greetings to you!


the movie SOLDIER


In the movie "Soldier," the genetically engineered soldiers were created to have lower IQs than the "natural" soldiers, that is why the naturals prevailed at the end. And that is my exact point: IQ is very important. Now, if they genetically engineered soldiers with high IQs, super-robust bodies, and a good training and experience background, they would be unmatched by any naturals.

Regards.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Ludwig Beethoven]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
.
1. While most likely true, environment shapes the intelligence people have. Take a brilliant person, cultivate them in an unfair brutal place, They will be intelligent, but they are probably NOT the person you want guiding and shaping society. Just because someone does not wax grand and pompous does not mean they are not intelligent.

2. Actually civilization probably depends on a mix of people. Some portion of intelligent people, some portion of charismatic leaders, some portion of enforcers of order, a large portion of people who probably aren't very intelligent at all. I believe it is this apportionment that makes a functional civilization/society.
I suspect there is a biological tendancy for certain ratios of intelligence [as well as other traits] to be distributed in a given population.

3. Isn't interesting that however advanced we become a large [the largest?] portion of humanity still lives in poverty? How lofty we become when we look down from towers. Now if we can just pull the base of the tower up out of the muck everything will be great. Does anyone see some humor in this?
I can float in the air if i can just pick my feet up off the ground.

4. You do realize genetic diversity gives a species robustness? Monoculture is extremely risky. [read insanely risky] Are you afraid to let genuine Darwinism take its course? I realize it is crude, but it has resulted in ourselves, a reasonably intelligent, reasonably robust species. I don't mind unique new traits being artificially added to humans and let time tell how useful they actually are as opposed what was anticipated. This will, artificially add to genetic diversity of the species and make it more robust instead of less-so. PS. Monoculture is boring and intellectually unstimulating.

5. As for the immenent collapse of civilization because of lack of intelligence, somehow i have my doubts. You could have all the great designs and insights into the future and if people don't have or exercise the discipline in regards to them, it doesn't mean diddly.

Intelligent people based on different experiences and attitudes can have very different opinions from one another. Some things are probably more arbitrary than we care to admit.

If by Eugenics you mean some kind of genetic monoculture you should go look in the mirror, is that a stupid person staring back at you? Species that become overly specialized have a higher likelyhood of becoming extinct.

If you on the other hand want to talk about population control I would be right there with you. The peak Oil transition [collapse?] will probably be easier if there are not 10 to 20 billion people on the planet but 7 or 8 billion instead. A broad based restriction on reproduction of all types and classes of people would preserve maximum genetic diversity.
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join