It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is Eugenics a Real Threat in the Near Future

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:11 AM
This is ATS so of course eugenics has been discussed. We all know about the old eugenics movement. Population control has been touted as the only way to save humanity since the inception of Eugenics in the early 1900s.

There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to population control. Of course there is the argument that humans are like a cancer and need to be regulated. Then there is the camp that says the sanctity of life out weighs any negative effect on our planet or species.

It is my belief that most of us fall somewhere inbetween these two ideologies. What I want to do with this thread is give a short history of Eugenics, present ideas from both sides, and explain why I believe if conducted properly eugenics could be one of the most important endeavors of the human species.

The word eugenics derives from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genēs (born), and was coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, who defined it as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".

As a social movement eugenics reached its height of popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. By the end of World War II eugenics had been largely abandoned,[2] though current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and current "utilitarian" and social darwinistic theories[3]. At its pre-war zenith, the movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity.[4]

Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits.

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people. The "interventions" advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, "promiscuous" women, homosexuals and entire "racial" groups——such as the Roma and Jews——as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.

OK. . . So Eugenics is bad. At least in the extremes it has been taken to in the past, but does that mean that all principles of Eugenics are bad?

There are three main ways by which the methods of eugenics can be applied.[citation needed] One is mandatory eugenics or authoritarian eugenics, in which the government mandates a eugenics program. Policies and/or legislation is often seen as being coercive and restrictive.

Another is promotional voluntary eugenics, in which eugenics is voluntarily practiced and promoted to the general population, but not officially mandated. This is a form of non-state enforced eugenics, using a liberal or democratic approach, which can mostly be seen in the 1900s. The third is private eugenics, which is practiced voluntarily by individuals and groups, but not promoted to the general population.

The idea of forced sterilizations and abortions is disturbing to most people as it should be.

However in theory it is not so bad. Mentaly handicapped people with potential to produce more mentaly handicapped (be it retarted, criminal, insane) people not being allowed to procreate seems on the surface to be a fantastic idea.

The underlying horror begins when you begin to define mentaly handicapped. Severe mental retardation aside it has been suggested (early in the eugenics movement) that anyone with an unsound mind is handicapped. The depressed the hyperactive, the uneducated, and the colored were all thought to be mentally undesireable.

Another driveing force in the Eugenics movement has been race.

Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany's racially-based social policies that placed the improvement of the race through eugenics at the center of their concerns and targeted those humans they identified as "life unworthy of life" (German Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, religious, and weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed in the Action

We all know racial genocide is wrong. We killed many many Nazi's under the guise of stopping a genocide of the Jews. The funny (not really) thing is they based their ideas on what we were doing right here at home in America

The Nazis based their eugenics program on the United States' programs of forced sterilization.[6]

The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, proclaimed on July 14, 1933, required physicians to register every case of hereditary illness known to them, except in women over forty-five years of age.[7] Physicians could be fined for failing to comply.

After the end of World War II the eugenics movement was largely abandoned.

Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era.

The 10 principles of true eugenics are outlined in the Georgia Guidestones (a mystery in their own right)

The principles are as follows

1.Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2.Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3.Unite humanity with a living new language.
4.Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5.Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6.Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7.Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8.Balance personal rights with social duties.
9.Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

Aside from number 1 its extremely hard for even me (who believes highly in the sanctity of life) to say these principles are bad.

Never have these been implemented in a way that wasn't a complete twisting of the true ideas.

Let us consider momentarily each of these rules (aside from #1)

#2 Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.

This one is a tricky one for me. If you look at it from the sterilization point you can obviously see its shortcomings. However if you paint it with the genetic manipulation brush it could be a real medical godsend. (please don't argue about the exsistance of god here thats not the point) Repairing cancerous genes before passing the damage down through generations in a matter of just 20 years or so cancer could literally be bred out of humanity. (barring new cases caused by free radicals)

#3 Unite humanity with a living new language.

This one is possibly the only one that is actually happening without the aid or a big push by man himself. English is the language of science mathematics and business. It brings us closer as a species and shrinks our world considerably.

#4 Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason

This one is obvious to me. . . .

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:37 AM
If this were implemented not just by the leadership but by everyone then our world would undoubtedly be more peaceful. The problem is that no one seems to be REASONABLE enough to accept ideas or beliefs of others. This one can't be adopted by just a few. If it were the few who choose to follow it would be sitting ducks against the narrowminded masses.

#5 Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts

Not to difficult to see the relevance in this one. It does seem to say NWO all over it however. This is probably the hardest to implement as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cliche statement yes fact yes possible to implement without major problems. . . I don't know

#6 Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court

this one goes hand in hand with number 5 so I'm not going to talk about it much.

#7 Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

This one is key. It seems to be the most relevant to things being discussed here in the States today. All the useless beurocrats that do nothing but clog the system and block real change must be ousted. Around the world people are beginning to see that the blue bloods that have run the show for so long now are not acting in humanities best interest. Its my belief that #7 is about to happen. For it to work however in the way the guidestones mean for it to be it must happen peacefully, but im not sure thats possible anymore.

#8 Balance personal rights with social duties

This sounds to me to be just like Obamas mantra. Socialism is a dirty word in America and for good reason. It doesn't work in practice like it does on paper. Fairness and equality for everyone seems fair but should the man who dedicates 10 years of his life to learn the practice of medicine make the same as the highschool drop-out that flips his after work burger? No he shouldn't.

This does not mean however that #8 can't be effectively used. A blend of capitalism and socialism (which seems to be whre were headed) could make #8 a reality. It is however a slippery path that must be tread with great care.

#9 Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite

This one is my FAVORITE. It speaks directly to our small ATS community. We here all seem to shoot for this one. Keep plugging away guys the truth must be sought out and be shared. And all you ATS'ers try to and honestly it makes me incredibly proud to be a member of this community. Of course we have our own cooks here but over-all I love you guys

#10 Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature

I cant say enough about number 10. Its the one I've seen huge flames break out over here on ATS. Someone says we have to kill off alot of people we a cancer blah blah blah. Then the opposition says well you go first then.

This aproach is futile. There is a harmonic blend of people and planet. More and more people everyday are waking to this fact and trying to make changes to make it a reality. We are nature at heart, so we must also leave room for ourselves to bond with nature. The green movement is upon us and personaly im glad.

Global warming or not we must take care of our home. The sanctity of the earth is no less important than that of man. The Earth will continue on without people. People however cannot for now go on without our pale blue dot.

I know there has been alot said here but i must say a little more im afraid

When I first joined ATS I posted a thread on the horrors of Eugenics. . . I've blasted eugenisists on many threads. Then i started thinking about the stones. The essence of Eugenics and my mind changed for the most part.

I know this is the general consipiracy forum so allow to finally present you with the conspiracy. It is the disinfo about Eugenics. The critics want you to shudder at the mention of the word. We can't allow that.

We have countless threads about not buying the official 9-11 story. Why doesnt every nasty little conspiracy get argued for or against so fervantly? This could be the greatest movement of human thought in history but not if it conjures images of giant gas chambers, piles of corpses, and sterilized millions.

Sometimes the real conspiracy isn't what we thought it to be.


posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 02:22 AM
We've been practicing eugenics for years. Not killing people who are ill or have other inheritable problems, but by checking genetic material during pregnancies and terminating pregnancies that are likely to produce seriously impaired children whose quality of life is likely to be very poor. For example, if the test shows that the fetus would contract Huntington's Chorea, they might well choose to abort, rather than bringing someone into the world who was doomed to die a slow, horrible death as their brains deteriorate.

Some people also decide what gender to allow to go to term; wrong gender, they abort.

The notion of the "sanctity of life" is basic hogwash. Yes, life really is sacred, but if we continue to breed mindlessly, we will eventually cause a massive collapse of the population. Then life won't be worth a pitcher of warm spit, as the saying goes. Starvation, disease, and war will be Nature's way of adjusting the population. Nature is not known for her gentleness.

The question isn't whether to control the population, to reduce it to sustainable levels. The question is only how it's going to happen. If we take steps to limit the number of kids born, we can have an easy time of it. If we don't, we'll suffer horrors beyond what we've already managed to do to ourselves.

As far as eugenics, I don't think that's a good idea. Our ideal of health, beauty, or other worthiness is vague and arbitrary. We really do need genetic diversity, so as to avoid breeding ourselves into an evolutionary corner we can't survive, should our environment change significantly (almost a dead certainty). The best ones to survive such changes may be the ones we'd least like to have as our ideal.

new topics

log in