PDA

View Full Version : Eugenics and the future of the Race and Humanity



Ederico
Saturday, August 3rd, 2002, 03:09 PM
First of all I am just starting to get interested in Eugenics and Race-Related matters. Pera_Z gave this link to a very interesting web-site, which is: http://www.prometheism.net .

I would like to know what exactly does Eugenics entail, how could it improve the Aryan Race and Humanity? What are Eugenic practices that are practical? Dysgenics is the opposite of Eugenics, but what does it exactly entail?

The improvement of the Race in all aspects is of cardinal importance to any Aryan and Nationalist, how can we use Eugenics for this purpose?

GreenHeart
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Nazzjonalista
First of all I am just starting to get interested in Eugenics and Race-Related matters. Pera_Z gave this link to a very interesting web-site, which is: http://www.prometheism.net .

I would like to know what exactly does Eugenics entail, how could it improve the Aryan Race and Humanity? What are Eugenic practices that are practical? Dysgenics is the opposite of Eugenics, but what does it exactly entail?

The improvement of the Race in all aspects is of cardinal importance to any Aryan and Nationalist, how can we use Eugenics for this purpose?

Eugenics is of course to make any certain people in any certain population better. The means of doing this most commonly include:

-Sterilization of diseased (the ones who's diseases that are inherited and will be passed on to their children), and mentally retarded, and phsychos.

-Selective breeding of the best specimens of selected group

-Promoting the ones with the best genes to have more children

-The breeding out of bad gene characteristics

-OCCASIONALLY breeding for a certain racial type or phenotype genotype etc.....

Dysgenics are applied to what happens when said group inherits worse and worse genes with each successive generation, because the most inept people tend to have the most kids in a society without some form of (positive selection) eugenics be it natural or inforced.

I hope this will clarify some things!

Ederico
Sunday, August 4th, 2002, 02:00 PM
Thanks a lot NordicPower88, I basically know that, I would like to start a discussion about Eugenics. I personally believe some sort of Eugenic program must be set-up for the improvement of the Race in Genetic terms. Perhaps someone more expert into these Race-related matters could speak his mind. Through a good knowledge of genetics we can improve the genetic stock of our Race and thus Humanity to reach a real superior level, that is why I find myself interested in this subject.

GreenHeart
Monday, August 5th, 2002, 12:36 AM
Here are some sites for your further reading:

http://www26.brinkster.com/archived/
http://www.eugenics.net/
http://www.beloit.edu/~biology/genethics/eugenics.html

and here they have about a thousand links to other eugenics sites:
http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/eugenics.htm#Pro%20EUGENICS

I haven't read them all but they look good. I've been to eugenics.net for quite a long time and Brinkster is something I just discovered 2 days ago. The rest I searched for especially with you in mind, and are new to me too! :cool

Chemical Nose
Monday, August 5th, 2002, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by NordicPower88

-Sterilization of diseased (the ones who's diseases that are inherited and will be passed on to their children), and mentally retarded, and phsychos.


so you suggest some sort of state control? why not make it common virtue among people.

Who should define psychos? (I assume you refer to psychopatia)
many psychopaths are clever and are those who hide and accuse,
thus not the exposed element.

who should point them out? a superficial state total impersonal to the situation and circumstances its judging in!


-Selective breeding of the best specimens of selected group

again who define this? a certain committee chosen by who?


-Promoting the ones with the best genes to have more children


by certain benefits?

Naro626
Wednesday, August 7th, 2002, 07:56 PM
Chemical Nose, you sound like a Red. Always trying to confuse the issues with so-called grey areas. Isn't it obvious how policies should be designed? We eleminate that component that is least desirable in society first. Thin the herd so to speak and propigate what is left of our pure race. It takes research and studiousness to determine those that are neither the greatest nor the least and their place but it can be done. We can start by sterilizing and executing/exiling the obvious. Blacks, child molesters, Jews, the rest of the mud races etc....

You expose your true colors when you try to throw plans for a pure race into confusion. x_nono

Support your brothers and think of a resolution don't discourage the truth or the way that seems difficult.

GreenHeart
Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 01:32 AM
I didn't suggest anything yet!! I was only explaining the idea of eugenics! I can try to find the answers but it will take more than ONE person to formulate a sensible eugenics plan.

Anyway, it's obvious we need eugenics, and quickly! It's not fair to bring cripples into this world when we could have prevented it. I find it inhumane to subject someone to a life of fear and rejection because of something they can't change. The same thing is with the other races and that's why they should have their own society and not live in ours- racial separation!

Ederico
Thursday, August 8th, 2002, 09:37 PM
I would definitely support an Eugenics program aimed to improve our Racial Collective as Aryans and create Genetically Strong and Capable Offspring for a better future. By improving our own Race we improve Humanity, and I believe that every Race should follow an Eugenic program. Any opposition to such an ideal is in my opinion irrational and possibly also immoral.

The Genetically Undesirable Traits should be removed from our Racial Gene Pool through any possible method, as that would eliminate the imperferctions in our Race as we follow our Evolutionary Path. Our aim when Genetics is concerned is simple :to outdo ourselves and to ensure that future generations are Superior to the current generations, and superior to other Races.The Genetically Desirable Traits should be increased in our Population through any possible method as well, since the objective of any Eugenics program should be to improve the Genetic Element of our Race and that is done not only by removing the Genetically Undesirable Traits, but most importantly by promoting the Genetically Desirable Traits.

As the Knowledge in Human Genetics and Biology increases and Technology in this field gets more sophisticated and advanced we can use this Knowledge to reach our objective to Genetically improve our Race. This is a fascinating subject which should be made use of for the interests of the Aryan Race.

Pera_Z
Thursday, August 15th, 2002, 11:35 AM
I saw where the discussion ended.

For everything about eugenic you should read EUGENIC MANIFESTO by James L. Hart
It is almost everything about it.

It is very good work and maybe some comrades could misunderstand it.

P.Z.

James Baker
Saturday, August 24th, 2002, 12:12 PM
The following is from http://eugenics.home.att.net/

"Humans are very much like our primate ancestors. Unfortunately, with our larger intelligent brains, we have acquired the ability to foresee our deaths as soon as we are able to understand life, at a very young age. With this horror, we have instead of facing life with knowledge that we have a brief time to live -- a time to be made the most of -- we have turned back to our primitive instincts and succumbed to religion, false beliefs, and submission to dominance by others.

The answer to this dilemma during most of this century, has been to try to change human culture, assuming it is infinitely malleable, leading to the agony of communism and the short comings of egalitarian democracies. And in the rest of the world, despotism reigns under numerous doctrines, with little hope for the people subjected to the state's propaganda. This web page is dedicated to putting forth the view that to change the human condition we must change the innate nature of humans, that is, we must encourage the breeding of people with a higher intellect, people better able to understand what motivates them and who can eventually revolt against the subjugation by the state or the controlling elite.

It is my contention that this can be done by focusing on innate human traits we want to promote through a better understanding of behavior genetics. But to promote eugenics as a secular religion, it becomes necessary to begin with a political agenda to bring it about. Much of what I advocate, in keeping with the understanding that evolution occurs at the genetic, individual and group levels, has to do with advancing both individual eugenics and group eugenics. That is, it appears that eugenics can only be advanced in a world where nations are free to advance their own interests without interference.

Anyone who is familiar with the United Nations, NATO, the European Economic Union, and the New World Order knows that we are on the brink of giving up national sovereignty for a world totalitarianism, where a central committee will dictate to the masses how to think and behave. We see this happening now in Yugoslavia, where NATO is being used to violently smash a sovereign state into obeying new international rules. I advocate only two viable options for eugenics: a return to nationalism, where competing nations will experiment with various social and scientific agendas to raise their peoples to higher levels of intelligence, followed by other traits the population desires to promote; and/or, to increase group solidarity and practice eugenics without borders. The second one has been practiced by Jews for thousands of years, but it can be a dangerous road to follow for it invariably leads to group conflict in the nations where they dominate. Much of my writing has to do therefore not just with the technology of eugenics, but with human nature and how we react as competing groups.

Some have asked why I do not consider libertarianism in my scope of possible means for raising humans to higher levels. I do not discount it out right, especially since I personally have a very strong libertarian affinity. However, it appears that libertarianism is not attractive to most people except a few intellectuals, and I therefore prefer to focus on political systems that I feel have a potential for success. I hope libertarianism all the best, but I just do not see it as intricately bound to human nature as is the cohesiveness we find in national ethnic identity.

Eugenics is here to stay, and the only question now is how severely will political forces try to stamp it out and what group or nation will be the victor in the end. But a more highly evolved human will be the result and this process will continue unabated into the future. Nietzsche's supermen are right around the corner waiting for their creator to begin the task. We are their creator, they are our children.

Finally, you may ask why so many of my articles are intertwined with the Jewish approach to eugenics and why I use them over and over again to make numerous points about human behavior AND about the need for nationalism. First, Jews are one of the few identifiable groups (actually, the Ashkenazi Jews specifically) who have practiced eugenics with tenacious success that has raised their intelligence to a remarkably high level, along with increasing group cohesiveness leading to extreme ethnocentrism or xenophobia. Several issues arise from this achievement. First, because of the form of their genetic selection process, they have primarily developed their verbal skills, making them uniquely adept at manipulation, deception, propaganda, academics, the media, etc. This would not normally be a problem, except that they have managed with this verbal skill to control politics and national policy, while those with other skills have built the technological foundations of great nations in Europe and America. That is, the Jewish contribution may not have been very great or even negative, as their accumulation of far greater wealth than any other ethnic group has to do with their abilities in manipulation of other people through the power of words rather than through constructing or building industry. Skilled craftsmen and technicians are as important as lawyers, politicians, academics or journalists; but the rewards have gone to the elite who have the power of the word over the skill of the craftsmen.

Second, Jews have been at the forefront of promoting multiculturalism, diversity, globalism, etc., while trying to block nationalism, while at the same time embracing Zionism. This faction of Jews, leftover from the days of Communism have maintained their presence in academics, the media and politics and are the primary stumbling block to other ethnic groups trying to form their own cohesive nationhood based on their genetic similarity, just like the Jews have done in Israel. My objection to Jewish influence in America therefore is strictly political and aimed at the Jewish left, not the empirical Jewish right, and their are many of them who reject multiculturalism and genetic assimilation of incompatible peoples. These Jews I embrace, the few that there are on the side of eugenics and human advancement.

And from the East, I also see an emerging nationalism. It may be that the eugenic program I envision will take place in countries like Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, India, etc. They may be able to overcome the individualism and lack of solidarity found in the Christian West. Christianity may only be the expression of a people who are creative and intelligent, but lack Nietzsche's concept of "the will to power" necessary to turn against destructive sentimentality found in the West. We have much to learn about what is genetic, and what is cultural. But if Christian morality is made up of a genetic weakness then a new species of human will have to come from the East, or from a hybridization of East and West. This issue will be taken up in detail as we learn more about what contributes to each civilizations inability to apply eugenics effectively. But competition between groups for intellectual superiority will be the driving force of eugenics -- and nationalism is the formula for this friendly competition. May the most determined, and empirically driven race win."

The above is from http://eugenics.home.att.net/

cosmocreator
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Tonight I had a revelation while watching a Nordish girl with a charcoal black nigger and a little brown nigglet. I thought to myself, go ahead and enjoy yourself. Times change and you'll get what's coming to you.

Humans, for the last 100,000+ years have always embraced technology. Those that didn't, were left behind. The time will come when eugenics meets Genome. I have no doubt about it. It may not happen in our life time. It may not even occur for hundreds of years depending on how oppressive governments are. But, humans will embrace this new technology. The sad part is that if NS Germany would had won WWII, they would have already embraced it and we'd be on our way to a super being.

cosmocreator
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 10:00 PM
Excerpts from:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/eugenics

Selective breeding was suggested as early as Plato who stated or rather wished that human reproduction should be controlled by authorities. He proposed that the selection should be perfomed by a fake lottery, controlled by the government, so that the people's feelings wouldn't be hurt by awareness of selection principles. Other instances of eugenics-like programs in Ancient times include the city of Sparta's mythological practice of leaving weak babies outside of city borders to die.

However, the initial principle defined by Galton, was directly in connection with the teaching and work of Darwin, himself very influenced by Malthus Thomas Robert Malthus (February 14, 1766 - December 23, 1834). According to Darwin, the mechanisms of the natural selection are thwarted by human civilization. One of the objectives of civilization is somehow to help the underprivileged ones, therefore to be opposed to the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. According to eugenicists, the loss of effectiveness could lead to an increasing number of individuals who would have normally been eliminated through natural selection processes. Eugenicists thus propose to promote actions to balance effects of natural selection mechanism loss within civilizations. This basic principle inspired numerous and very diverse philosophies, scientific or pseudo-scientific theories and social practices.

One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenic ideas (before they were labeled as such) was Alexander Graham Bell best known as one of the inventors of the telephone. In 1881, Bell investigated the rate of deafness on Martha's Vineyard, Mass. From this he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and recommended a marriage prohibition against the deaf (in his "Memoir upon the formation of a deaf variety of the human Race"). Like many other early eugenicists, he proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics, and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could be considered possible breeding places of a deaf human race.

Almost all non-Catholic western nations adopted some eugenics legislation, with the notable exception of Britain. Sweden forcibly sterilized 62,000 "unfits" as part of a eugenics program over a forty year period (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/background_briefings/international/newsid_290000/290661.stm). Similar incidents occurred in Canada, Australia, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Switzerland and Iceland for people the government declared to be mentally deficient.

cosmocreator
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 10:07 PM
Interesting side note:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Robert%20Klark%20Graham

Nordhammer
Saturday, October 2nd, 2004, 11:47 PM
All good points, this sums it up: "According to Darwin, the mechanisms of the natural selection are thwarted by human civilization. One of the objectives of civilization is somehow to help the underprivileged ones, therefore to be opposed to the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest."

Especially in an interracial environment this is catastrophic. No nation's race will long survive a constant influx of racially incompatible immigrants, as mongrelization is inevitable.

DanseMacabre
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 05:06 AM
Do you believe it is desirable to keep those with less intelligence, personality disorders, severe mental disablity, drug and/or alcohol addiction, etc from breeding?

Next World
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 05:30 AM
Sometimes.

Northern Paladin
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 05:36 AM
Do you believe it is desirable to keep those with less intelligence, personality disorders, severe mental disablity, drug and/or alcohol addiction, etc from breeding?

Define personality disorders. I think that's a very interesting realm.;)

DanseMacabre
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 05:46 AM
Personality Disorder: A disorder characterized by the chronic use of mechanisms of coping in an inappropriate, stereotyped, and maladaptive manner.

Ten personality disorders, grouped into 3 clusters, are defined in the DSM-IV:

Cluster A -- Odd or eccentric behavior.
Includes:
Paranoid personality disorder
Schizoid personality disorder

Cluster B -- Dramatic, emotional or erratic behavior.
Includes:
Antisocial personality disorder
Borderline personality disorder
Histrionic personality disorder
Narcissistic personality disorder

Cluster C -- Anxious fearful behavior.
Includes:
Avoidant personality disorder
Dependent personality disorder
Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

source:
www.medterms.com

Soldier of Wodann
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 06:14 AM
Wait wait wait, Alcohol addiction? Are you in favor of sterilizing the whole of Europe? ;)


(and I don't see why you'd want to sterilize people for things that aren't inherited, like alcohol/drug abuse, but everything else is justified.)

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 06:20 AM
Don't most geniuses have 'personality disorders'?

I am for Eugenics to weed out traits which are hereditary and absolutely detrimental like mental retardation and certain physical handicaps, and in general for encouraging those with higher intelligence/incomes to have more children and not allowing those with less to have more children at the expense of society. 'Personality disorders' are just the extreme end of personality traits which are human nature and thus not a problem, drug/alcohol addiction is not hereditary as far as I know. I'm all for weeding out the tards and the others who can't support themselves much less a family, but if you exclude anyone with a below 100 IQ, personality disorder, or drug/alcohol addiction you will be excluding 90% of the population.

sophia
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 06:49 AM
I think if we do eugenics we should do it by setting up society to naturally select for certain characteristics and not by direct artificial selection. This is because I do not think we have the level of judgment yet to be able to artificially select in an intelligent way.
If we do do artificial selection it should be on a small scale and mainly experimental and not the whole of society.

That's my opinion on "normal" traits at any rate. When it comes to horrible agonizing diseases, then a more direct approach seems fine so long as caution is applied (because there may be some important adaptivity in the genes for that disease that was not immediately evident).

Jäger
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 10:06 AM
I think if we do eugenics we should do it by setting up society to naturally select for certain characteristics and not by direct artificial selection. This is because I do not think we have the level of judgment yet to be able to artificially select in an intelligent way.
Indeed, we should give priority to a more natural selection, due to human error, but there are clear cases where human selection should be applied, e.g. abortions of deformed infants.

Btw. this thread is a duplicate, see http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=751

Death and the Sun
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 10:22 AM
I think if we do eugenics we should do it by setting up society to naturally select for certain characteristics and not by direct artificial selection. This is because I do not think we have the level of judgment yet to be able to artificially select in an intelligent way.
If we do do artificial selection it should be on a small scale and mainly experimental and not the whole of society.

That's my opinion on "normal" traits at any rate. When it comes to horrible agonizing diseases, then a more direct approach seems fine so long as caution is applied (because there may be some important adaptivity in the genes for that disease that was not immediately evident).


Yep. Took the words right out of my mouth.

Elysium
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 10:48 AM
Definitely. I think, with civilisation (and medicine) comes biological regression (since the weak are no longer killed, but protected, the ugly are made to look attractive, etc.). Regression must be stopped and Progression is much preferred, obviously. For the slowing or stopping of regression you need some sort of system which gets rid of those who would normally be killed in a more natural environment (without civilisation) and stops the "undesirables" from increasing in number.

There are obviously many things that must be taken in to consideration. For example, no "blurred" lines for what is acceptable and not acceptable, Eugenics-wise. Also, how you deal with those who are considered "undesirable", whether it's execution, sterilisation, segregation, etc.

Agrippa
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 11:48 AM
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.

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 :p

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.

From a thread on Stirpes with a longer debate about the issue:
http://forum.stirpes.net/physical-anthropology/13693-my-argumentation-favour-eugenic-policy.html

exit
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Do you believe it is desirable to keep those with less intelligence, personality disorders, severe mental disablity, drug and/or alcohol addiction, etc from breeding?

I'm pro-eugenics, but I don't believe that personality disorders and addiction is hereditary. And yes I've heard all about the so-called "addiction gene" but I just don't buy it, and I am much more critical of psychologists' theories.

Agrippa
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 04:30 PM
I'm pro-eugenics, but I don't believe that personality disorders and addiction is hereditary. And yes I've heard all about the so-called "addiction gene" but I just don't buy it, and I am much more critical of psychologists' theories.

There is a strong genetic component and thats for sure after all we know, but this genetic component's impact can vary depending on the context and some genes linked to disorders and the like have not just negative, but also possible positive effects on a blood line - not necessarily every individual, but a bloodline.

F.e. certain lines which have members who are affected by Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder produce, beside those rather "defect subjects" also above average and sometimes even ingenious individuals for which the very same genes were responsible - just that the genetic (f.e. stabilising genes which allow to use the creative power of the personality traits related without becoming pathological) and environmental milieu were more favourable.

It really depends...

DanseMacabre
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 06:11 PM
Do we really want children growing up around an alcoholic/drug addict? Even if there is no such thing as an "addictive gene"; it can only be for the benefit of society that these types of people do not reproduce.

As far a personality disorders, I should have been more clear. Some are rather benign to society. For example I don't believe somebody with OCD or Avoidant Personality Disorder poses a threat. I'm more in favor of keeping those with personality disorders harmful to society such as Antisocial Personality, from reproducing. Again, even if it isn't hereditary it can only be for the benefit of society to keep them from reproducing.

Agrippa
Monday, January 14th, 2008, 09:22 PM
even if it isn't hereditary it can only be for the benefit of society to keep them from reproducing.

If they have good traits and come from a good blood line, it would a harm to kill off this line and better to eliminate just the defects by modern technical measures of human Eugenics.

exit
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008, 03:04 PM
Do we really want children growing up around an alcoholic/drug addict? Even if there is no such thing as an "addictive gene"; it can only be for the benefit of society that these types of people do not reproduce.


The problem lies in defining what an alcoholic/addict is and what a mentally ill person is; many diagnoses are wrong. And also, what about redemption?


There is a strong genetic component and thats for sure after all we know, but this genetic component's impact can vary depending on the context and some genes linked to disorders and the like have not just negative, but also possible positive effects on a blood line - not necessarily every individual, but a bloodline.

F.e. certain lines which have members who are affected by Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder produce, beside those rather "defect subjects" also above average and sometimes even ingenious individuals for which the very same genes were responsible - just that the genetic (f.e. stabilising genes which allow to use the creative power of the personality traits related without becoming pathological) and environmental milieu were more favourable.

It really depends...


It also depends how one defines genius; creativity and intellect are not synonymous. But for the most part I agree with you. I believe it is partly genetic but in a different way. In my opinion, in many of these cases of mental illness the patient suffers from being too sentimental rather than intellectual, and their pride bars them from any sort of internal change. They instead are put on toxic medications which aim to make the patient even more passive and the side effects from these medications actually create the problem (or severely worsens the problem), which makes them clinically ill. If only they could be taught to use their intellect to subordinate their passions then they would be of some fine use, but until then they are drowned out by wet sympathetic currents that have escaped their control.

Agrippa
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008, 07:33 PM
Well, in some cases there are serious physiological and physical changes f.e. of the brain, with degenerative signs. Something like that, once broken out, cannot be corrected without heavy medication - another matter would be if it could be prevented, which might be the case for many but for sure not all psychotics. We are still far away from being able to fully control such processes or to even understand them. Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder have still unsolved mysteries and this will be the case for quite some time I guess, even if assuming a constant scientific-medical progress. Not talking about the difference between understanding a process and being able to control it...

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008, 07:36 PM
How about we just sterilize anyone we don't like.;):D

Deary
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008, 10:03 PM
Cluster A -- Odd or eccentric behavior.
Includes:
Paranoid personality disorder
Schizoid personality disorder

Eek. I guess I'd be out of the loop. Three members in my family are paranoid schizophrenics. Like Agrippa said, research seems unable to pinpoint just how genetically inherited it is and how much is a result of environmental influences. Some may carry the genes and live unaffected, as well as their children.


Do we really want children growing up around an alcoholic/drug addict? Even if there is no such thing as an "addictive gene"; it can only be for the benefit of society that these types of people do not reproduce.

If there is no such thing as a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and drug abuse, then it means there is a fair opportunity for alcoholics and addicts to recover. Sterilization, as opposed to therapy, is far from an ethical solution for such people.

Neophyte
Thursday, January 17th, 2008, 03:02 AM
I think if we do eugenics we should do it by setting up society to naturally select for certain characteristics and not by direct artificial selection. This is because I do not think we have the level of judgment yet to be able to artificially select in an intelligent way.
If we do do artificial selection it should be on a small scale and mainly experimental and not the whole of society.

That's my opinion on "normal" traits at any rate. When it comes to horrible agonizing diseases, then a more direct approach seems fine so long as caution is applied (because there may be some important adaptivity in the genes for that disease that was not immediately evident).

I think that you got it slightly wrong there. Eugenics is not so much selecting for something as it is to select against something. While we may not be able to specify exactly what it is that we want humanity to be we sure can say what we do not want it to be. For habitual criminals, antisocial individuals and the cognitively challenged eugenics might be the right way to go; for the rest of us at least.

Eugenics is simply the application of knowledge and understanding on the social process, for we must realise that the kind of society we have is a function of the kind of people we are. For example, I cannot see how one can oppose eugenics and oppose miscegenation at the same time as the arguments involved would to no small extents be opposed to each other.