Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Eugenics

Re: Eugenics
March 26, 2010, 12:36:39 AM
As immature as his comment may be, he's got a point. The whole "kill everyone under 120, keep everyone over 120" is not binary, as convenient as that would be if it was.
What matter is immaturity if one is right? If I'm going to be right all the time, I might as well have fun while doing it, or else I'll get bored and decide to be wrong once in a while.

Tripartite:

  • Body
  • Intelligence
  • Character

Each supports the other. Character makes someone respond when they only merely fully understand that their behaviour is unhealthy; this aids the body. A healthy body helps the brain get the nutrients and oxygen it needs for consistent, optimum performance. More intelligence helps us better understand how existence works, which informs our wisdom/character for what needs responding to (and what destructive things to blow off like anthropocentric humanism) in life.
This is almost too neat a classification. "Character" is an invention of the mind, which is just another part of the body little different from the foot or genitalia. Thought is, like an erection, a series of chemical reactions. Can we ever, then, make distinctions between the two?  However, I do like the sense of interrelatedness in this classification system -- weak bodies will produce weak thoughts. "Never trust the thoughts of a sedentary man" -- or something to that effect.

That said, it would be impossible to institute a eugenics program based on a "tripartite classification," unless, of course, we devise a psychological test to ascertain how much of a particular fictional substance an individual contains, the fictional substance being, of course, "character." Not to say that there is no such thing as "character," as people can will new things into existence whenever they please (such as the notion of "IQ"), but if people think the creation of IQ tests was complicated, I can't wait to see reactions to the "character quotient." Whose character scale do we go by? The Catholic Church's? Aristotle's? The Nazis'? Glen Beck's? Michael Moore's? Once we've decided to grade all human beings' according to the Michael Moore Character Scale, we must then decide an arbitrary series of tests designed to show how closely our "characters" coincide with Michael Moore's. Those with acceptable MMQ's, let's say around 70, are allowed to breed, while those with exceptionally high MMQ's can join MENSA. Consequently, the world is saved and the ubermensch (the ones most closely resembling Michael Moore in all respects) colonize Mars.

Quote from: Erosion
Agreed, but how do you propose that we tackle the problem of overpopulation?
I am neither a pragmatist nor very clever in devising complex plans, and recognizing my limitations, I have no plans to even try to answer this question. Additionally, being a selfish, immature individual, I recognize I am not cut out for public service. However, when I see something that is clearly fucking stupid being paraded around by stone-faced scholars as "The Truth," I find it highly amusing to attack these ideas. I will admit that I may be the only one finding this amusing, but I am the most important person in the world after all.

All this said, aren't the birth rates in developed nations declining anyway? The only places where parents are shitting out kids like it's their job are the undeveloped countries where people use fewer resources anyway. So, this seems more like a cultural rather than an "overpopulation destroying the world" kind of problem. If all the Westerners die and Africans rule in our stead, the planet ain't gonna give a fuck. I am, however, no expert on this issue and reserve the right to be wrong on this particular case.

Re: Eugenics
March 26, 2010, 02:58:34 AM
A series of articles related to Repository for Germinal Choice

-I found this to be very interesting, scroll down to see the index for all the parts of the series.

Re: Eugenics
March 26, 2010, 06:27:24 AM
More like "My IQ is over 120, so I have nothing to worry about, let's talk shit on an internet site about anyone under this mark because I can."

Re: Eugenics
March 26, 2010, 10:01:32 AM
More like "My IQ is over 120, so I have nothing to worry about, let's talk shit on an internet site about anyone under this mark because I can."

You just made the classic mistake! Some people may do that, as some people will take advantage of anything, but that doesn't mean the reason for it is bad.

Some people think in backward logic: I can use this thing for my own ends!

Others think sanely: This makes sense (according to adaptation to the world), so I will adopt it.

Which category do you think you're in, with your critique above?

That's why they call it the classic mistake.

Re: Eugenics
September 12, 2010, 06:02:20 PM
Quote
Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

"We're on a train headed to the future and there's a bridge out, " LaBruzzo said of what he suspects are dangerous demographic trends. "And nobody wants to talk about it."

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labruzzo_sterilization_plan_fi.html

He's right. Reducing the quantity of the lifelong impoverished each generation would take a growing burden off state budgets, taxpayers, and the environment. There are limits to a given nation's wealth producing potential and there are limits to the environment's carrying capacity. Adding people just digs us in a deeper hole at this point.

Re: Eugenics
September 13, 2010, 07:37:55 AM
Some of the comments on that page are hilarious.

"Looks like someone hasn't studied their history.  This is a Nazi move."

Because nothing the Nazis ever did was good, in the slightest, for anything, at all.

I bet you anything that the poster of that comment would say that he supported modern "greenism", a political movement which is based on Nazi views on ecology, sustainability, and conservationism (though without the holistic viewpoint which made the Nazis' policies work).

Looks like someone hasn't studied their history.

Re: Eugenics
September 13, 2010, 10:03:37 AM
Anyone below positive one deviation should have no input into the political process whatsoever. Allowing this is irresponsible. Why not allow primary school kids to vote and run for public office? Maybe we're just oppressive and don't really value freedumbs for all.