Comments on: Eugenics and You

By: Entraya

Entraya — Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:00:16 +0000

Intelligent people are made, not born. Being so freaked out about any decline in iq tests is silly, since iq tests are a pathetic representation of intelligence. Humans are stubborn, and the only thing natural which we won’t overcome is our own nature. Natural selection, our planet, and any eugenic decline will be compensated for. One might have the most genetically talented person, yet that persons potential will wither depending on environments. Similarly, you can have an entirely ordinary person, and with enthusiasm, will and a supporting environment, those people and their brains have mighty potential. Only retardation and other such things are in the way of such potential, and even so, i doubt allowing those people to spread their genes will do much. The real deal in making an intelligent society, is to look at schools, who are currently killing enthusiasm for learning wherever i seem to look. To hell with any genetics or eugenics; as long as there are people, there will be some of those interested in science, and with all of those people together, communicating across the globe and sharing their knowledge, they will accomplish more than any single genius, should it be true that iq relates to such intelligence and said iq potentially dropping. I didn’t read beyond the point talking about this, and i frankly dont care to. Pardon my clumsy english and disorganized comment; this is merely my thoughts squeezed out rather hastily

By: stupid_deutsch

stupid_deutsch — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:30:29 +0000

Awesome article, even if I’m late to the party. Very well written.

By: Imhotep32

Imhotep32 — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 02:49:33 +0000

Eugenics is one of those premises that looks good on paper but in application can be seen to be the horror that the Nazis demonstrated.

By: TheStink

TheStink — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:02:46 +0000

Robert Klark Graham’s Repository for Germinal Choice reminded me of the story ‘My Uncle Oswald’ which was published by Roald Dahl in 1979. Dahl explores the subject in a comedic light and is more focused on the business of setting up and managing such a scheme rather than the exploration of its effects. Not a bad book though… Defiantly an interesting topic and a very enjoyable article.

By: GreenGestalt

GreenGestalt — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 06:19:32 +0000

Way I see it we need eugenics. Yes, in the past it was used to justify crude racism and class-ism, and the genocides waged in its name frightening. But, man faces that the Inferior do produce more than the superior and as civilization protects them from both weakness of body and weakness of mind their weaknesses will be passed on from one generation to the next till man himself is weakened.

You’ve pointed out at the end of this article how even JEWISH groups now try to do this, themselves both the most victim of “Eugenics” and due to a long period of the same culture most in need of it. Of course since it’s such a hot button issue (especially to them) they fight hardest against it.

I think Genetic Engineering could be the solution. That way the “Inferiors” could be eliminated with a simple shot, so say vision problems caused by genetics corrected, etc. That way we’d have the results of a long genetic purge but without anyone being “Hitler”. Also, we’d not need to be all blonde eyed aryans either, matter of fact look at the guys body modding to look like snakes and tigers…we’d have “Voluntary Chimeras” running around.

By: johnbo

johnbo — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:00:30 +0000

“…there was never quite enough sperm on hand, and the founder was forced to spend much of his time seeking brilliant men to come to his aid.”

It seems almost sinful, writing such a clever and ribald pun.

By: Cloudflare7

Cloudflare7 — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:12:30 +0000

I’m torn… On the one hand, I recognize that this we ARE undoubtedly interrupting natural selection in the worst way, e.g. diabetics. On the other, I’m wary of assuming our judgement is best in this situation. Think modern dog breeds; many have respiratory, cardiovascular and other problems due entirely to our bad genetic selection. What we think is “cute” may not be useful, or may inadvertently be harmful. Also, my mother was paranoid-schizophrenic…. I might be mildy crazy, but I’m more useful than most. It may be the narcissist in me, but I tend to think most if not all of our greatest minds were at best “eccentric” and at worst insane.

By: ronin

ronin — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:05:31 +0000

In all the centuries since humans have been breeding canines from wolves have we once created an overall life form superior in all aspects to said wolf? No, but we have created specialized life forms that fit into unique sub sections, and artificial classifications. Therefore selectively breeding human beings will create sub humans who will be subservient to the “superior” humans. Let nature take its course imbeciles! A researcher trying to find a cure for Muscular Dystrophy came across a startling revelation. Human beings have a genetic deficiency compared to our ape cousins in growing jaw muscles. Why is this important? Because it was the catalyst to support brain growth. The skull is genetic prime real-estate. You either invest in jaw muscle, or have a weaker jaw, but a larger expansion for brain capacity. We start messing with human genetics or think we know better as regards to selective breeding what are we going to miss out on or plain discount as an “undesirable” trait. In conclusion eugenicist talk is self destructive no matter how you look at it.

By: Sicklet

Sicklet — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:34:06 +0000

I stick to the phrase “nobody’s perfect.” We bump into big issues when we try to purebreed dogs. When we keep breeding for specific traits, like good hips, we end up bringing out unwanted ones, like tendency to bloat. When we breed for a good build build we get a cruddy personality. What makes us think we’re going to do better on ourselves? We’re going to have ultra hot idiots and very sickly geniuses.. wait. Never mind.

Anyways have pleeenty of orphans, hobos, and traffic jams as it is with everyone from the age of 10 to 50 popping out babies and deciding it was a bad plan after the fact. Eugenics is kind of silly to worry about when overpopulation is much more glaring.

Awesome article.

By: Mirage_GSM

Mirage_GSM — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:42:42 +0000

[quote]One major problem with “positive” eugenics can be summed up in a simple question: What makes one “better” than another, and who decides that?[/quote]
Several people have used these phrases correctly in their comments, but I believe nobody has yet explained them.
“Positive” and “negative” eugenics has nothing to do with an evaluation of moral standards or one being better than the other.
Posivitve eugenics simply means encouraging the reproduction of people with desirable traits, while negative eugenics is discouraging the reproduction of people with undesirable traits.

[quote]…just like the Irish were bred to hold their liquor! [/quote]
That’s not genetics – just lifelong training ;-)