Eugenics

[Sip]

Re: Eugenics

As far as eugenics ... one of the biggest problems of modern-day humanity (this is a global problem) is that the dumb poor idiots tend to pro-create a LOT more than the intelligent, capable, and more useful humans. And with the advent of social programs like welfare and socialized health care etc, the incapable idiots are even more empowered to procreate which makes the problem worse.

The good thing about natural selection is that it takes care of this problem ... HOWEVER, we have been screwing with natural selection by artificially helping the less fit survive. This is a big big problem ... and as bad as it sounds that some people aren't worth keeping alive ... well .. that's how it is. If you can't afford to buy food for your baby, then you shouldn't be having babies. If sterilization is the only way to enforce that, then so be it.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Eugenics

As far as eugenics ... one of the biggest problems of modern-day humanity (this is a global problem) is that the dumb poor idiots tend to pro-create a LOT more than the intelligent, capable, and more useful humans. And with the advent of social programs like welfare and socialized health care etc, the incapable idiots are even more empowered to procreate which makes the problem worse.

The good thing about natural selection is that it takes care of this problem ... HOWEVER, we have been screwing with natural selection by artificially helping the less fit survive. This is a big big problem ... and as bad as it sounds that some people aren't worth keeping alive ... well .. that's how it is. If you can't afford to buy food for your baby, then you shouldn't be having babies. If sterilization is the only way to enforce that, then so be it.

It's even worse. Intelligent, capable useful humans are busy working to run the world in which the dumb poor idiots spend pro-creating with money from social programs.

Sterilization doesn't do a thing... put them to work! You sterilize them and they hang out in bars making dumb men even dumber.

[Siggie]

Re: Eugenics

I have never in my life, here on the forum or in any other way, ever said, typed, mimed, or even thought that science is infallible. It isn't. But, it is the best method we have to gain knowledge.

No scientist worth their salt would ever say that.

Eugenics wasn't "Science: "f*ck that, we're going to kill the meek so they can't inherit it" "

Science is a tool. It isn't a person, a group of persons, any entity, organization, etc. It is a method. That is all.

---

And just fyi, what eugenics and evolution have in common is the idea of natural selection (which is the mechanism of change) which gave Dalton the idea that it could be manipulated unnaturaly to let others' (not nature) shape the species.


---

Lastly, I agree with you both that social programs are a problem and it's undermining personal responsibility. Collectively, we're getting dumber through the process Sip described.
I don't think sterilizing people is the answer, but teaching personal responsibility and doing a better job educating people would be a nice start. If people didn't think the government will always be there to bail them out, perhaps they'd live their lives a bit differently. People should generally be accountable for their decisions and actions.

If we just carry others, we breed laziness... Those who are working look around and see others slacking and getting about the same income (from govt. programs) and think why should I work and support others who don't? I can be like them...
That's why communism failed, no?

[Siggie]

Re: Eugenics

Incidentally, humans have been doing this very thing with dogs for at least a thousand years I would think... It certainly would have occurred to these folks to selectively breed with or without Darwin, don't you think?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Eugenics

And just fyi, what eugenics and evolution have in common is the idea of natural selection (which is the mechanism of change) which gave Dalton the idea that it could be manipulated unnaturaly to let others' (not nature) shape the species.

When the species stops using money to decide fate (since money is the mechanism of change in the human species) then perhaps "nature" might have more of an effect in shaping the species.

[Siggie]

Re: Eugenics

When the species stops using money to decide fate (since money is the mechanism of change in the human species) then perhaps "nature" might have more of an effect in shaping the species.

I was answering your question. What are you talking about?
Is this one of those times when you quote me, but you're not talking to me or responding to my post? Just ranting in general?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Eugenics

I was answering your question. What are you talking about?
Is this one of those times when you quote me, but you're not talking to me or responding to my post? Just ranting in general?

I'm commenting on your comment. (As long as humans are involved, selection will always be artificial).

[Siggie]

Re: Eugenics

You mean because we give people money and in developed countries you can survive with money? So, that's what's shaping the human species?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Eugenics

You mean because we give people money and in developed countries you can survive with money? So, that's what's shaping the human species?

No, because the religion of money is constantly changing as natural selection is being exploited by the elite members of the species. Natural selection doesn't distinguish between long and short term adaptations. Since most of humanity is short sighted, short-term adaptations are the cause of most of humanity's problems.

[Siggie]

Re: Eugenics

No, because the religion of money is constantly changing as natural selection is being exploited by the elite members of the species. Natural selection doesn't distinguish between long and short term adaptations. Since most of humanity is short sighted, short-term adaptations are the cause of most of humanity's problems.

So, you don't agree that it's the lowest SES that are reproducing at the highest rates?

Or maybe just explain how you think it is that natural selection is being exploited by the elite?
By definition, it wouldn't be natural selection, so I'm not sure what you're referring to as the descriptor you're using is inaccurate.