Is Artificial Selection the Key to Humanity's Future?

[Nachtwolf]

Sherman Hawk, The Book of Millennium

If it be the truth that human beings, as biological organisms, are subject to the natural laws which govern other creatures, then surely it is also true that human beings, as a species, hate themselves. The one thing which has made us great, we undermine and compromise at every opportunity; the one thing which prevents us from sliding backwards into chaos and distress, we make our best efforts to attack and push away; the one thing to which we owe our humblest thanks, our deepest respect, we despise.

That thing is natural selection.

Countless millions have died to ensure our future — countless souls snuffed out to make us what we are today. Did those who were less intelligent, less cunning, less healthy, less able to survive and reproduce not think or feel? Did they not struggle and suffer? Was their desire for life and happiness so different from our own? Was their anguish at being denied these things less real than our own would be?

These men and women who died without copying their genes are not to be forgotten, not to be ignored, not to be disgraced, for these men and women who died for us are our heroes! It is to their sacrifice that we owe everything we have today, our health, our prosperity, our intelligence, our sentiment — our very lives. If they had not perished, and instead had passed onto us the legacy of their genetic poverty, then the forces of natural selection, which cannot be placated or avoided forever, no matter how long we may try, would have surely destroyed us all when we were just emerging, weak, helpless, naked, from our Eden, from the place our species was born.

Each and every great civilization we have made, from Egypt to America, has spit upon their sacrifice by encouraging its unfit to procreate. Those who would have died under the harsh system of natural selection are fed, sheltered, and encouraged to reproduce by their society. Those who would have thrived and passed on their genes were distracted by the fruits of civilization, seduced by wealth and power, addicted to the practice of thought itself, and failed to pass on their genetic wealth.

Each and every civilization before our own, believing itself above the laws of natural selection, was eventually destroyed by those laws. As harmful mutations built up, as the less able and intelligent outbred the more fortunate, as genetic poverty washed over them in ever growing waves, the fire which kindled the light of civilization dimmed, sputtered, and died, leaving anarchy and destruction and hundreds of years of ignorance in its wake.

If we are to break this dysgenic cycle of suffering, then we must respect those who died for us, respect the forces of natural selection which weeded out their undesirable genes, and, if we are to remove natural selection, we must replace it with artificial selection. There must be selection, in one form or another, and if we find death too cruel a sentence for those whose genes do not merit survival, then we must either reproduce responsibly and in a way which will leave our children with a heritage of genetic wealth, or else accept the whirlwind of destruction which overtakes us when natural selection, too long suppressed, cleanses our species in one nightmarish gesture.

 

[Pseudonym]

This is, indeed, evolution's natural conclusion.

 

[Pseudonym]

Not that I accept evolution, though. Is this evolution's logical conclusion? Is no one commenting on this because it's been discussed before, or is this too extreme a view to even merit a response? Discussion, anyone -

 

[Pseudonym]

Nevermind - I just found a discussion covering this topic in the social sciences section of the forum.

 

[olde drunk]

ARE YOU SAYING THAT A BEGGARD IS WORTHLESS? THAT A PRIEST IS WORTHY?

from a philosophical view, all are equal and living 'their experience' for their reason. what good is a perfect world that is temporal?

i believe that we are here as part of a process that is infinite and eternal. living in the physical is a small, tho important, part.

peace,

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Nevermind - I just found a discussion covering this topic in the social sciences section of the forum.

And do you have any comments on that discussion? or contributions you'd like to make?

 

[Pseudonym]

comments and discussion? Yes, after reading through 14 pages.

I'll revise my opinion about evolution's link with eugenics. People incorporate evolution into their philosophies in many different ways. However, I can easily see how one might leap from a detached view of species survival to a view of human survival at all cost, not witholding forced sterilization and other such measures. We're just animals, right?

I do have a question. Eugenics is of extremely questionable value, whether theoretically or practically. But why don't we get rid of health care? If we let natural selection work for us, after a period of time there would be virtually no health problems.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf

...respect the forces of natural selection which weeded out their undesirable genes, and, if we are to remove natural selection, we must replace it with artificial selection. There must be selection, in one form or another, and if we find death too cruel a sentence for those whose genes do not merit survival, then we must either reproduce responsibly and in a way which will leave our children with a heritage of genetic wealth, or else accept the whirlwind of destruction which overtakes us when natural selection, too long suppressed, cleanses our species in one nightmarish gesture.


These same concepts were discussed and carried out with the Nuremberg laws of the 1940s Nazi era.

Only the supermen were to merit survival, the necessity to cleanse the inferior races in one nightmarish gesture and reproduce the Aryan race and their need to take over the earth. All to keep the subhumans from contaminating the 'ubermenchen' and their need for space on this earth. All to honor those glorious supermen who died in the service of the LEADER.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pseudonym


I do have a question. Eugenics is of extremely questionable value, whether theoretically or practically. But why don't we get rid of health care? If we let natural selection work for us, after a period of time there would be virtually no health problems.

Because the lack of a limb or a bad liver doesn't affect your brain, and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

Because the lack of a limb or a bad liver doesn't affect your brain, and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs.

"Lack of a liver doesn't affect your brain?" Question, how long would a MODERN BRAIN live without a liver to perform the prime functions necessary to keep that brain alive?

Who on this Earth will decide who is inferior and not worthy of life?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

Because the lack of a limb or a bad liver doesn't affect your brain, and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs.

"Lack of a liver doesn't affect your brain?" Question, how long would a MODERN BRAIN live without a liver to perform the prime functions necessary to keep that brain alive?

Who on this Earth will decide who is inferior and not worthy of life?

Maybe you are lacking something, because I said "bad liver', not 'missing' liver.


I will decide who is worthy and unworthy...yes, ME!LOL

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

Maybe you are lacking something, because I said "bad liver', not 'missing' liver.

Thank you for your prompt reply. I will again post your sentence in its entirety.

"Because the lack of a limb or a bad liver doesn't affect your brain, and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs."

Did you mean that the lack of a limb or simply an ailing liver doesn't affect your brain? You connected lack of limb and/or a bad liver as not affecting the MODERN BRAIN?


I will decide who is worthy and unworthy...yes, ME!LOL

Heil Hitler... "Arbeit Mach Frei"

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero

Maybe you are lacking something, because I said "bad liver', not 'missing' liver.

Thank you for your prompt reply. I will again post your sentence in its entirety.

"Because the lack of a limb or a bad liver doesn't affect your brain, and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs."

Did you mean that the lack of a limb or simply an ailing liver doesn't affect your brain? You connected lack of limb and/or a bad liver as not affecting the MODERN BRAIN?


I will decide who is worthy and unworthy...yes, ME!LOL

Heil Hitler... "Arbeit Mach Frei"

Are you being intentionally argumentative? I saidf a missing limb or a bad liver. IF the liver was missing, who cares if it is a missing healthy liver or a missing unhealthy liver?

My point was that we have health care because weeding out correctable diseases by allowing people to die takes a back seat to the contributions that people make to society. We don't generally just let people die if there is something we can do, and that is because we generally recognize the person as being valuable regardlessof their physical status.

And, of course, you should realize when I am joking...

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

Are you being intentionally argumentative? I saidf a missing limb or a bad liver. IF the liver was missing, who cares if it is a missing healthy liver or a missing unhealthy liver?
My point was that we have health care because weeding out correctable diseases by allowing people to die takes a back seat to the contributions that people make to society. We don't generally just let people die if there is something we can do, and that is because we generally recognize the person as being valuable regardlessof their physical status.
And, of course, you should realize when I am joking...

I didn't understand your attempt at joking as your statement was not amusing. Nor did I mean to be argumentative. It was simply the structure of your sentence that confused me as even an ailing liver can be the end of the organism and death of the brain.

Your statement about the reality that all human beings have the possibility of being valuable to humanity regardless of health is commendable.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by talus
Originally posted by Zero



I didn't understand your attempt at joking as your statement was not amusing. Nor did I mean to be argumentative. It was simply the structure of your sentence that confused me as even an ailing liver can be the end of the organism and death of the brain.

No, see, the joke was when I said that I will decide who lives and who dies! ME! That's why I typed it in boldface, and put a "LOL" after it.

Your statement about the reality that all human beings have the possibility of being valuable to humanity regardless of health is commendable.

I'm so glad you approve...[/sarcasm]

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Zero

No, see, the joke was when I said that I will decide who lives and who dies! ME! That's why I typed it in boldface, and put a "LOL" after it. I'm so glad you approve...[/sarcasm]

It seems to me that joking about selections relating to who lives and dies is not something very funny. Sarcasm can be hurtful if not done to prove a point of view.

Nice talking to you zero...

 

[Pseudonym]

Children! children!
(sigh)

now then -
What about the mentally handicapped?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Children! children!
(sigh)

now then -
What about the mentally handicapped?

What about them?

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Zero
and for modern humans brain power is as useful a survival trait as strong limbs.

If intelligence and physical well-being are to be the judges of a person's profit to society's evolution, then the severely/profoundly mentally retarded have no business being kept alive. They use up resources, but give little to offset their drain on humanity.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
If intelligence and physical well-being are to be the judges of a person's profit to society's evolution, then the severely/profoundly mentally retarded have no business being kept alive. They use up resources, but give little to offset their drain on humanity.

Well, they seem to make their folks happy...and the decision would fall to them, wouldn't it?

LOL, I dunno...what I do know is that anyone who would actually sit around and try to assign different values to the lives of human beings based on ANY standard is a pretty worthless human being.

 

[Pseudonym]

Are you saying that the only reason we don't kill off relatively worthless humans is that it is impractical?

Note that I don't believe we should kill off the handicapped, because I have a moral standard to apply to this situation. What I am interested in is how someone goes about developing a moral system inclusive of evolution.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Are you saying that the only reason we don't kill off relatively worthless humans is that it is impractical?

Note that I don't believe we should kill off the handicapped, because I have a moral standard to apply to this situation. What I am interested in is how someone goes about developing a moral system inclusive of evolution.

Is this going to turn into one of those stupid "you can't have morals unless you believe in (your mythology here)" discussions?

 

[billy_boy_999]

getting back to the crux of the argument - yes, human compassion is at odds with evolution. but humans have evolved into a compassionate species.

the answer to the conundrum is: if we are all products of natural law, nothing humans do - including negate physical forces of genetic evolution - is really at odds with natural evolution, that is genetic evolution and mimetic evolution. mimetic evolution gave rise to human compassion which negates genetic evolution.

or are we willing to sacrifice the compassion others have so bravely sacrificed for us to evolve in order to kill genetically 'unfit' (that is, every single one of us) human specimens?

 

[Zero]

Compassion is very obviously not at odds with evolution, or else it wouldn't exist in so many of us, would it?

 

[confutatis]

Originally posted by Zero
Compassion is very obviously not at odds with evolution, or else it wouldn't exist in so many of us, would it?

Rumour has it that dinosaurs thought along similar lines: "we are very obviously not at odds with evolution, or else there wouldn't be so many of us, would it?"

touché

 

[metasystem]

Sherman Hawk doesn't have the best grasp of evolutionary theory...

As Hawk implies, *fitness* is primary when considering the longevity of genetic lineages. However, he either forgot about or ignored the secondary importance of *variation* to ensure the long-term survival of a population in potentially variable environments.

Homogeneity in the gene-pool is the evolutionary kiss of death for a species when selection pressures happen to change.

 

[talus]

Originally posted by billy_boy_999

getting back to the crux of the argument - yes, human compassion is at odds with evolution. but humans have evolved into a compassionate species. the answer to the conundrum is: if we are all products of natural law, nothing humans do - including negate physical forces of genetic evolution - is really at odds with natural evolution, that is genetic evolution and mimetic evolution. mimetic evolution gave rise to human compassion which negates genetic evolution. or are we willing to sacrifice the compassion others have so bravely sacrificed for us to evolve in order to kill genetically 'unfit' (that is, every single one of us) human specimens?

Billy you have a great many assumptions about evolution and evolving into a compassionate specie.

Some of humanity likes to think of itself as now compassionate and noble.

There is just one problem with your premise besides assuming the theory of evolution had any validity at all.

Humanities compassionate evolutionary changes:

Humans kill each other in great numbers and only one or two cannibalize their kill. (Dahmer of Milwaukee, etc.)

Humans send their children to blow up and kill other human beings in the name of their god.

War has not been abolished and men have not turned their swords into plowshares.

Women and children are molested and killed.

Some of mankind goes to church on Sunday only to go to rob our fellow man on Monday.

Some of humanity dies in the tens of thousands due to a lack of nutrition, disease, weapons, cancer and related fatal diseases, etc which is a direct result of our jump to higher life forms.

So much for improving the specie through evolution

 

[Nachtwolf]

Pseudonym writes:
This is, indeed, evolution's natural conclusion.

Exactly. Nor can you escape it by rejecting Darwinism, because even the modest principles of microevolution support the same conclusion.

ole drunk writes:
ARE YOU SAYING THAT A BEGGARD IS WORTHLESS? THAT A PRIEST IS WORTHY?

No.

ole drunk writes:
from a philosophical view, all are equal

No.

Pseudonym writes:
forced sterilization

Hawk isn't promoting forced sterilization. Please stay on topic.

Pseudonym writes:
We're just animals, right?

We're certainly not plants.

Pseudonym writes:
But why don't we get rid of health care?

Probably for the same reason we don't institute forced sterilization - because there is no reason to see people suffer unnecessarily. That is, indeed, the whole point of eugenics, to alleviate suffering. Think about it.

talus writes:
These same concepts were discussed and carried out with the Nuremberg laws of the 1940s Nazi era.

Yes, and in my home state of California outside of the 1940s Nazi era.

Seriously, talus, you need to re-examine your logic. The Nazis also used spoons; would you have us abandon our spoons because the Nazis used them?

Pseudonym writes:
If intelligence and physical well-being are to be the judges of a person's profit to society's evolution, then the severely/profoundly mentally retarded have no business being kept alive. They use up resources, but give little to offset their drain on humanity.

Your point is ultimately what Hawk was getting at. It's not what a person can offer to society which gives him value. Elsewhere, Hawk writes:

It is important not to dismiss the "undesirables" as being undesirable; and in truth they are themselves not undesirable, merely unlucky, for it is misfortune bestowed upon them by the genetic lottery which has made them so. It is precisely the fact that we are more than the mere sum of our genes that makes improving the Nation so important. If it were simply that we began and ended with our genes, then would it truly matter whether civilization died for want of intelligence to support it? Why should we care, if few or no gifted individuals remain to suffer?

This is contrary to the ideals of the Nation — I desire that all might share genetic wealth, and it is difficult for me to imagine a more noble dream than this.

Metasystem writes:
As Hawk implies, *fitness* is primary when considering the longevity of genetic lineages. However, he either forgot about or ignored the secondary importance of *variation* to ensure the long-term survival of a population in potentially variable environments.

Homogeneity in the gene-pool is the evolutionary kiss of death for a species when selection pressures happen to change.

These remarks, while interesting, are ultimately off topic - Hawk does not promote the destruction of genetic variation in this excerpt (or anywhere else, to my knowledge; he's not a fool).


--Mark

 

[talus]

Originally posted by Nachtwolf

Exactly. Nor can you escape it by rejecting Darwinism, because even the modest principles of microevolution support the same conclusion.

Quite a broad statement Nacht. What exactly does microevolution support other than in very local processes which indicates only that evolution occurs within limited parameters. There is no prima facea evidence that evolution or creation was the causitive factor for anything.


Hawk isn't promoting forced sterilization. Please stay on topic.

Then what is he promoting?

talus writes:
These same concepts were discussed and carried out with the Nuremberg laws of the 1940s Nazi era.

Yes, and in my home state of California outside of the 1940s Nazi era. Seriously, talus, you need to re-examine your logic. The Nazis also used spoons; would you have us abandon our spoons because the Nazis used them?

What are you talking about? What form of eugenics or killing of the unfit was practiced during the Nazi era in your home state of California?

Your logic about the Nazi using spoons somehow correlating to others abandoning the use of spoons is somewhat like the 'walrus comparing cabbages to kings.'

You seem to be stretching these points to prove your own logic which also needs some re-examination.

 

[Zero]

"Darwinism" and "microevolution" are catchphrases often used by creationists...Nachtwolf, are you a creationist?

 

[Nachtwolf]

Hawk isn't promoting forced sterilization.

Then what is he promoting?

Voluntary eugenics. Look:

From The Book of Millennium, By Sherman Hawk:

Therefore I admonish you: Do not reproduce if it means creating humans of poor intelligence. If you are yourself of meager intelligence, do not be ashamed, but be responsible, and avoid passing your genes on to others. If you are of average intelligence and reasonably free from genetic diseases, or else if your intelligence is lacking but you feel that you must pass on your genes, then reproduce below replacement level to prevent overpopulation which threatens our planet more seriously with each passing year. You who are of high intelligence bear the greatest burden, yet it is a burden of joy, if you let it be — you must keep these genes alive, and copy them as frequently as is feasible, for they are more valuable than gold, and without them all the treasures of the Earth are as pearls thrown before swine.

I strongly suggest that you develop a better understanding of Hawk's views before you decide that you want to argue against them. For a quick overview of Hawk's positions, you can check the following page and read through the "Common Objections to Eugenics."

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/essays.htm

Nachtwolf, are you a creationist?

No. I was merely addressing a fundamentalist Christian in terms he could appreciate.


--Mark

 

[billy_boy_999]

i am glad that nachtwolf has steered this topic back to the real intersection of the argument, let us not pretend that hawk is a nazi or put words in people's mouths, he is promulgating an attitude towards our conscious directing of our own genetic evolution, a valid viewpoint...especially in light of our advancements in genetic engineering and dna science...

but i for one find a rather large problem with this philosophy of conscious genetic propogation, or social genetic engineering...it rests it's value on the false assumption that humans can know what is the most desirable genetic trait to pass on, nachtwolf has written or quoted a statement that suggest 'intelligence' is the prima facie 'gold' of our genetic inheritance...i could list a lot of other traits that i would prefer be passed on place of intelligence (sensibility, artistic vocation, generosity, foresight, compassion, creativity, beauty, big tits, etc...) but then these are just MY facile opinions of what i think is valuable in humanity's genetic inheritence...the point of natural selection is that the most desirable genetic traits ARE ALWAYS passed on, it is unavoidable...sexuality and natural selection have long been our impartial judges of genetic value...

it is possible that this is changing and so hawk's viewpoints do need to be considered...but they need to be considered more thoroughly...in the end personal self-interest will guide evolution and procreation, that is an inherent human desire to have offspring, just as it always has, not altruistic genetic planning...

 

[Nereid]

A discussion of timescales-likely-to-be-realistic might help here.

For example, how many generations of highly successful voluntary eugenics are needed for a significant change in the global human gene pool?

In this period of N generations, what are the likely milestones in human abilities in genetic engineering (defined in any, reasonably specific, way you choose)? If 'likely' is too difficult, try the extreme ranges - can't possibly happen; highly unlikely to NOT happen.

Over this same period, what are the major environmental changes that will affect homo sap. and its ecological niches? Best to choose a metric such as probability x impact. For example, the probability of global extinction through large asteroid/comet impact is indeed very small, but its impact is totally devastating (for homo sap.; for bacteria living 10km underground it's irrelevant).

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Zero
Is this going to turn into one of those stupid "you can't have morals unless you believe in (your mythology here)" discussions?

No. I'm not trying to convert you, Zero, but I am interested in your philosophy, which is the whole point of this section of the forum.

If I accepted evolution, I can see myself taking one of two positions:
A. that any concept of morals is a meaningless consequence of natural selection, so I would abandon them and live as I please, or
B. that the survival of the human species is the top priority, and that any measures needed to ensure this are taken, regardless of temporary suffering

So what is your position? Why should humans have any inherent worth apart from their contribution to the survival of the species?

- As a side note - In my home state of Virginia, a eugenics program was tested decades ago. Maybe I'll look up an article about it sometime, but guess what - it failed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If I accepted evolution, I can see myself taking one of two positions:
A. that any concept of morals is a meaningless consequence of natural selection, so I would abandon them and live as I please, or
B. that the survival of the human species is the top priority, and that any measures needed to ensure this are taken, regardless of temporary suffering

Sorry for breaking into this conversation, but I just wanted to note that there is a third alternative: you might have developed through evolution to PREFER a certain moral stance. Such as don't kill members of the tribe, but kill outlanders if the tribal consensus requires it.

 

[Nachtwolf]

it rests it's value on the false assumption that humans can know what is the most desirable genetic trait to pass on

No, it rests its value on the assumption that humans have subjective personal opinions about what are desirable traits (yes, plural) to pass on.

Given the choice, would you rather have been born intelligent, or unintelligent? Healthy, or diseased? Hardworking and focussed, or lazy and unable to concentrate? Civilization depends on all these traits, and as these traits are all being threatened by current dysgenic trends, civilization is ultimately in danger.

Pay special attention to the facts that:

* The need for eugenics, from the standpoint of the individual, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally care about the continuation of civilization and the welfare of those who live after I die. If you do not, then you have no obligation to support eugenics.

* Selecting in favor of intelligence does not mean ignoring other traits. It is possible to promote "sensibility, artistic vocation, generosity, foresight, compassion, creativity, beauty, big tits, etc..." although various studies have found all of these, with the exception of foresight, to correlate with IQ. (Yes, I understand that in a study of Austalian college women, breast size was positively related to IQ.)

* The genetic component to our intelligence is currently being eroded.

the point of natural selection is that the most desirable genetic traits ARE ALWAYS passed on

No, selective pressures are blind and lack any human concept of "desirability." Currently, selective pressures created by civilization favor ill health and stupidity.

A discussion of timescales-likely-to-be-realistic might help here.

Current dysgenic trends in reproduction and immigration are eroding the genetic component to IQ at a rate of roughly 2 points per generation throughout the Western world. This means that in less than 200 years the average IQ will have declined so far that, because of this and other other problems, Western civilization will be destroyed.

For example, how many generations of highly successful voluntary eugenics are needed for a significant change in the global human gene pool?

You will never understand any of this as long as you insist on viewing the subject from a global perspective. My own primary reason for promoting eugenics is to preserve Western culture, while in Africa, for instance, a better reason would be to finally end the countless generations of savagery and superstition, but the difficulties of African eugenics would be entirely different from Western eugenics. Currently it is in China where the best hope of eugenics lies - although it is argued by some that their reasons to employ eugenics are to ultimately dominate other nations.

I just wanted to note that there is a third alternative:

This deserves another thread.


--Mark

 

[Rader]

eugenics

People often believe that they must oppose eugenics since they oppose cloning, ethnic cleansing, abortion, or genetic manipulation. I wonder why?

Diversity seems to be a positve aspect of evolution, since we are not extinct.

I have read the link on eugenics, if those interested in it are so concerned about the moral issue behind it. And i say that because the link defends what they preach more than practice what they preach. Then why is its main concern intellegence and not maybe a more important priority, which is elimination of genetic diseases.

Currently it is in China where the best hope of eugenics lies - although it is argued by some that their reasons to employ eugenics are to ultimately dominate other nations.

I could see how a nation could be forced into doing this as part of its national defence budget.

 

[Nereid]

Nacthwolf: *SNIP
Given the choice, would you rather have been born intelligent, or unintelligent? Healthy, or diseased? Hardworking and focussed, or lazy and unable to concentrate? Civilization depends on all these traits, and as these traits are all being threatened by current dysgenic trends, civilization is ultimately in danger.
*SNAP *SNIP
Current dysgenic trends in reproduction and immigration are eroding the genetic component to IQ at a rate of roughly 2 points per generation throughout the Western world. This means that in less than 200 years the average IQ will have declined so far that, because of this and other other problems, Western civilization will be destroyed.

Current social, political, economic and demographic trends will mean that, well before 2204, 'Western civilization' will be but one small part of the rich and diverse 'global civilization'. No need for eugenics? Or rather a need for global eugenics?

(BTW, Nachtwolf seems a little uncertain about whether it's
'civilization' (Nereid's emphasis):
"The need for eugenics, from the standpoint of the individual, is a matter of personal opinion. I personally care about the continuation of civilization and the welfare of those who live after I die. If you do not, then you have no obligation to support eugenics.[/color]

'Western civilization': as above

or the US' current position as the only global superpower.)

Back in the Social Sciences sub-forum, Nachtwolf made several assertions on why he feels the US average IQ will decline at ~2/generation, and what disasters would be visited upon the US should its average national IQ decline by x. Nereid, and others, challenged Nachtwolf on these assertions; rather than repeat the debate here, interested readers may refer to the relevant threads elsewhere in PF.

 

[Nachtwolf]

People often believe that they must oppose eugenics since they oppose cloning, ethnic cleansing, abortion, or genetic manipulation. I wonder why?

Because people are stupid, and confuse their abhorrence for squares and rhombuses with a moral imperative to oppose quadrilaterals. This kind of general stupidity which saturates humanity is a big reason why I want eugenics.

Diversity seems to be a positve aspect of evolution, since we are not extinct.

Yes, and as I've already stated, eugenics is not about the elimination of diversity, is it?

I have read the link on eugenics

Well, it's a pity that you didn't understand it, Rader, but thank you for your important contribution to this discussion!

Nachtwolf seems a little uncertain about whether it's
'civilization' ... or the US' current position as the only global superpower.)

Not at all; I do care about the continuation of global civilization, but more than that, I care about the survival of Western civilization, and more than that, the welfare of my own country, and more than that, the happiness and good fortune of my children. I would certainly like to see other peoples employ eugenics, and I hope that ultimately their enlightened nations would respect the life which surrounds them and end practices such as

* Inhumane experimentation on animals
* Slavery
* Religious indoctrination
* Genital mutilation

And so on. But for you to think that the way my natural interest in others is directly proportional to the degree of relatedness they share with me is "confused" says ultimately that you do not understand the evolutionary principle of kin selection, or how it applies to human sentiment, Nereid.

This is, at base, the problem which I see you having - you don't seem to recognize that humans (if not yourself) favor themselves first, then their friends and family, then their broader social group, then their nation, then race and species and genus and so forth. Deep down, since you are yourself a living being and a product of evolutionary forces, you are probably governed by similar sentiments, although you may not have thought about that, Nereid. Oh well; at least selfAdjoint gets it:

"you might have developed through evolution to PREFER a certain moral stance. Such as don't kill members of the tribe, but kill outlanders if the tribal consensus requires it."

Back in the Social Sciences sub-forum, Nachtwolf made several assertions on why he feels the US average IQ will decline at ~2/generation, and what disasters would be visited upon the US should its average national IQ decline by x. Nereid, and others, challenged Nachtwolf on these assertions

Firstly, my claim was that the genetic component to IQ is declining at a rate of approximately two points per generation; this genetic decline is only beginning to manifest itself phenotypically. This is a distinction which I'm very surprised you aren't understanding, given your obvious intelligence and your usual predisposition towards punctilious nitpicking! But more importantly, I haven't seen you "challenge" any of this - you took for granted elsewhere that the more intelligent were being out-reproduced by the less intelligent, and you have never (to my knowledge) disputed that intelligence was in any way heritable. If you are going to accept these two facts, then it should be quite obvious to you that the genetic component to intelligence is declining via simple Darwinian mechanisms which ensure that traits which are reproduced more will become more prevalent than traits which are reproduced less. These are the same mechanisms which repeatedly doubled hominid encephalization quotients throughout our evolutionary history - only now they are working in the opposite direction. If you are unconcerned by this trend, that is your own affair.


--Mark

 

[billy_boy_999]

you took for granted elsewhere that the more intelligent were being out-reproduced by the less intelligent, and you have never (to my knowledge) disputed that intelligence was in any way heritable. If you are going to accept these two facts, then it should be quite obvious to you that the genetic component to intelligence is declining via simple Darwinian mechanisms which ensure that traits which are reproduced more will become more prevalent than traits which are reproduced less

i'm sorry, i for one do not see the empirical evidence that the 'more intelligent' are being 'out-reproduced' by the less intelligent...was there posted some valid and astonishing data to that effect somewhere in the thread that i missed?

 

[Evo]

Firstly, my claim was that the genetic component to IQ is declining at a rate of approximately two points per generation; this genetic decline is only beginning to manifest itself phenotypically. This is a distinction which I'm very surprised you aren't understanding, given your obvious intelligence and your usual predisposition towards punctilious nitpicking! But more importantly, I haven't seen you "challenge" any of this - you took for granted elsewhere that the more intelligent were being out-reproduced by the less intelligent, and you have never (to my knowledge) disputed that intelligence was in any way heritable. If you are going to accept these two facts, then it should be quite obvious to you that the genetic component to intelligence is declining via simple Darwinian mechanisms which ensure that traits which are reproduced more will become more prevalent than traits which are reproduced less. These are the same mechanisms which repeatedly doubled hominid encephalization quotients throughout our evolutionary history - only now they are working in the opposite direction. If you are unconcerned by this trend, that is your own affair.


--Mark

Wrong again Nachtwolf. You have been disproved on this time after time. I'm too busy right now to list all of the studies that show you are wrong and that across the board average IQ in the western world has been continually "increasing". The information has previously been posted in the social sciences threads. I do have this one handy.

"Each year 10,000 people take the MENSA IQ test - 2,500 pass to become members. Over the last century, the UK's average IQ has risen about 3 points every decade"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/intelligence/

 

[Zero]

Wrong again Nachtwolf. You have been disproved on this time after time. I'm too busy right now to list all of the studies that show you are wrong and that across the board average IQ in the western world has been continually "increasing". The information has previously been posted in the social sciences threads. I do have this one handy.

"Each year 10,000 people take the MENSA IQ test - 2,500 pass to become members. Over the last century, the UK's average IQ has risen about 3 points every decade"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/intelligence/

Once you've decided that racism(in whatever guise) is the way to go, can you ever come back from that madness? The answer appears to be "no".

 

[Zero]

i'm sorry, i for one do not see the empirical evidence that the 'more intelligent' are being 'out-reproduced' by the less intelligent...was there posted some valid and astonishing data to that effect somewhere in the thread that i missed?

There IS no data to that effect...there are bogus studies coming out of a racist think-tank, though. The fact that those studies are universally rejected on sound scientific principles only fuels the illusions of the nonconformists who feel radical by embracing pseudoscience.

 

[Rader]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rader
People often believe that they must oppose eugenics since they oppose cloning, ethnic cleansing, abortion, or genetic manipulation. I wonder why?

Because people are stupid, and confuse their abhorrence for squares and rhombuses with a moral imperative to oppose quadrilaterals. This kind of general stupidity which saturates humanity is a big reason why I want eugenics.

Your arrogant answer has pretty well given away your intentions. No people are not stupid, they have different opinions and some have moral imperatives that say it is wrong to eliminate other human beings, for what ever reason.

Quote:
Diversity seems to be a positve aspect of evolution, since we are not extinct.

Yes, and as I've already stated, eugenics is not about the elimination of diversity, is it?

Yes it is, diversity of specified human caracteristics. It would be the beginning of global mass racism. You propose to eliminate the stupid and make everyone intellegent. Let me give you some information, to make an intellegent decision. In five generations due to the fact that the birthrate of western society is 1.1 child per couple, that society will be replaced by the same humans you wish to elimate.

Quote:
I have read the link on eugenics

Well, it's a pity that you didn't understand it, Rader, but thank you for your important contribution to this discussion!

Oh but you are most certainly wrong there, i understand your intentions. I oppose them.

 

[olde drunk]

no matter what you think, you will be you.

within the context of philosphy, you are born into the situation that best suits you spiritual goal. believing in any form of superior human beings is an immature fantasy.

peace,

ps: who wizzed in the gene pool?