Eugenics and observations on humanity, see title for description Options

[nerdling]

Whenever I look around at the majority of the people I share this world with, I see an unbelievable amount of *ahem*cognitively bankrupt*cough* people. It's really quite surprising. Before the school year ended, I could look around at the people in any of my classes and count maybe 5 or 6 people with an IQ above 110, yet I could count at least 10 to 15 people with an IQ below 90.

When I see this sort of thing, the first thing that comes into my head is "god I hope they never manage to breed." Unfortunately, for some ungodly reason, these are the people who are the most likely to do so. I am not sure how many people reading this have seen the movie Idiocracy (I suggest you watch it), but as funny as it is, it also has a disturbing ring of plausibility...

A possible solution to this problem may be eugenics.

Eugenics has left a bloody path through history, and because of this it's potential has never been fully appreciated. Almost every single eugenics program to come to bear has been corrupted by the prejudices of the people running it (The Holocaust, for example). Now I realize that setting up death camps for anybody who had an IQ under 85 would be a bit over the top, but if everybody was tested at the age of 12 or so (before they become sexually active) then those who failed to meet the requirements could be sterilized in some manner. This would allow them to continue to live out their lives normally, but would prevent them from passing on their genetic material to the next generation.

The problem with this proposal is that it is completely implausible. Given human nature, the people who would run and organize this program would inevitably use it as means to promote their own prejudices. The methods of testing could easily be altered to make it more difficult for a less educated minority to pass.

I guess we have to live with what we've got. Honestly, this sort of thing makes me a little depressed as I realize the hopelessness of humanity.

[TheGhostAgent]

There is no need, they're killing themselves off. We just need to remove common sense warning labels such as CAUTION: HOT on a hot coffee cup, etc, to expedite the process.

Though one easy step is to stop/halt all research on STDs/AIDS, etc. Use those research resources and funding on diseases that are not brought onto one self. If you're not smart enough to use f'ing rubber or at least keep it in your f'ing pants, then you deserve the risk of contracting STDs and die from it. It's like crying and being shocked at having lung cancer from smoking, despite there being a warning label telling you not to f'ing smoke. I don't understand why we're wasting so much resources trying to keep dumb asses alive.

[DarkInsight]

This is sick, you actually want to deny people their right to have children?

And using IQ to judge a person is simply retarded. Being more intelligent doesn't necessarily make you a better man. Some have high IQ but don't know how to communicate with people at all, some have lower IQ but have a talent in making money, some are charismatic and persuasive, some are simply strong and healthy. Using one of the trait to make a judgement is simply STUPID.


And who the hell should be in judge of this? The government? In the end this will just become a tool for whoever held the power to punish their enemies.

[nerdling]

hmm...ghostagent, you have a very good point...

DarkInsight, I don't think you even bothered to read the whole thing. I already said that last bit.

[DarkInsight]

hmm...ghostagent, you have a very good point...

DarkInsight, I don't think you even bothered to read the whole thing. I already said that last bit.

I apologize. I am in a haste to reply and I missed the last part.

Sometimes, we will get this kind of feeling "Damn, if only this kind of people doesn't exist in this world"
or "what the hell is wrong with anybody,how come they can't understand it"

We may think we are smarter than some people, but unless we are sure that we are the smartest, people who are smarter than us might includes us in this "stupid crowd" too.

[Taxes-]

The biggest problem with eugenics is to know where to draw the line. Sterilize all people with an IQ of below 85? Why not under 120 like I've seen people claiming on some other forums? Why not just 100? That way we’d have the better half of humanity procreating while the lesser one does their thing. This all seems so arbitrary and unnatural and I’m not sure I like this.

I’m also not completely sure that IQ is linked as clearly as one might think to the genetic material of the parents, and even if it is, is IQ really the best way to separate the worthy and the non worthy? I don’t know for you, but I know a fuckload of would-be intelligent people that are wasting all of their talent on worthless endeavours. IQ seems to calculate the potential for usefulness to society, and not the usefulness itself.

I want to think that eugenics could indeed be helpful for the human race in the long run, but I can't convince myself that it would actually be a practical thing to do. I also think that for as long as humanism will run rampant in our societies, this kind of drastic measure will never happen and that therefore, discussing this kind of issues is not very useful. I think our time would be better spent on findings ways to topple modern society and democracy instead.

[nerdling]

lets see if I can answer two posts at once...

I chose 85 because it's my estimate of the point where all goes to hell cognitively, I know a lot of people who have IQs from 90-100 who are fine...but it seems that that's the universal point where true stupidity begins to manifest. That's a point that almost everybody can agree on.

[Helper-Monkey]

You would need to design some thing better than "IQ under x" because of the fact that IQ is not reliable. You could have different thought processes that people go through that the average human would not causing you view reality in a somewhat different way. This could lead to advances that would otherwise not be had.

Also, Eugenics would decrease genetic diversity, making it oh so much harder to adapt to environmental changes, and making diseases that much deadlier.

NOTE: Not totally for or against Eugenics, just noticed that not many of the negatives have been posted here yet.

This post has been edited by Helper-Monkey: Jul 2 2008, 12:23 PM

[Lone Infernal]

Human Campaign: Chapter 6: The Culling

...and look how that turned out (hint: Undead Campaign: Chapter 8: under the Burning Sky, Orc Campaign: Chapter 8: By Demons Be Driven, and Night Elf Campaign: Chapter 7:Twilight of The Gods)

[Taxes-]

lets see if I can answer two posts at once...

I chose 85 because it's my estimate of the point where all goes to hell cognitively, I know a lot of people who have IQs from 90-100 who are fine...but it seems that that's the universal point where true stupidity begins to manifest. That's a point that almost everybody can agree on.

Again, arbitrary. While you might personally believe that the cutting point for stupidity is at 85 of IQ, someone with higher standards for intelligence might put it at 95 or even higher.

[Friend1yFire]

I too once thought about this when I was young, before I had ever heard of eugenics. We actually had to make an 'ism' and write a paper. I called my genetiscism, and basically wrote out a simple eugenics plan. The teacher never said anything about it (I bet she was a little freaked out) and later I learned all the eugenics stuff that has gone through history.

I realised though that man is already past where eugenics would be productive. People are looking past cures to diseases, they won't diseases prevented. There are two ways this can happen, genetic manipulation or nano/bio technology. Eventually one of these will become common place in our society. (Maybe both) Then in time humanity will become either a cloned race or machines (And in the case of both have massive wars IN SPACE!!!111)

Of course that doesn't include the religious fanatics would will avoid either of the two solutions to disease, but if they don't adopt technology itself (And just avoid anything messing with humanity as we know it) they would perish. (This planet is temporarily viable for life).

I'm going to cut myself from continuing through the things I ponder and just say, eugenics is pretty much 'outdated' now.

[Ungeheuer]

The biggest problem with eugenics is to know where to draw the line. Sterilize all people with an IQ of below 85? Why not under 120 like I've seen people claiming on some other forums? Why not just 100? That way we’d have the better half of humanity procreating while the lesser one does their thing. This all seems so arbitrary and unnatural and I’m not sure I like this.

I’m also not completely sure that IQ is linked as clearly as one might think to the genetic material of the parents, and even if it is, is IQ really the best way to separate the worthy and the non worthy? I don’t know for you, but I know a fuckload of would-be intelligent people that are wasting all of their talent on worthless endeavours. IQ seems to calculate the potential for usefulness to society, and not the usefulness itself.

I want to think that eugenics could indeed be helpful for the human race in the long run, but I can't convince myself that it would actually be a practical thing to do. I also think that for as long as humanism will run rampant in our societies, this kind of drastic measure will never happen and that therefore, discussing this kind of issues is not very useful. I think our time would be better spent on findings ways to topple modern society and democracy instead.

I agree with this.

Eugenics shouldn't be necessary in a healthy society, it's fighting the symptoms of a greater dysfunction, not the dysfunction itself, this combined with the practical flaws Taxes pointed out make it a rather useless concept. Birth control ala China is a different story though.

[phrakk]

Jesus Christ, you people frighten me. Of course eugenics works, but why would you ever want it to? It's a terrible, mean, spiteful, holier-than-though activity no matter how you look at it. Especially based on IQ of all things. I mean, wow.

And allowing diseases to grow wild to control uneducated minorities? REALLY?

[TheGhostAgent]

Jesus Christ, you people frighten me. Of course eugenics works, but why would you ever want it to? It's a terrible, mean, spiteful, holier-than-though activity no matter how you look at it. Especially based on IQ of all things. I mean, wow.

And allowing diseases to grow wild to control uneducated minorities? REALLY?

If by uneducated = ignore warning labels, signs, etc, sure.

If people don't know about the diseases, educate them.

If they still fuck despite said knowledge, fuck 'em.

[phrakk]

There is no need, they're killing themselves off. We just need to remove common sense warning labels such as CAUTION: HOT on a hot coffee cup, etc, to expedite the process.

Though one easy step is to stop/halt all research on STDs/AIDS, etc. Use those research resources and funding on diseases that are not brought onto one self. If you're not smart enough to use f'ing rubber or at least keep it in your f'ing pants, then you deserve the risk of contracting STDs and die from it. It's like crying and being shocked at having lung cancer from smoking, despite there being a warning label telling you not to f'ing smoke. I don't understand why we're wasting so much resources trying to keep dumb asses alive.

This whole thing you're saying here scares the shit out of me. You really believe that anyone who has sex or smokes deserves to die, and painfully? As somebody who does both enjoyable activities in moderation, I'd just like to say "Screw you right back."

[-The-Observer-]

If by uneducated = ignore warning labels, signs, etc, sure.

If people don't know about the diseases, educate them.

If they still fuck despite said knowledge, fuck 'em.

there's more than one way to get aids..

[Kesselring]

There is no need, they're killing themselves off. We just need to remove common sense warning labels such as CAUTION: HOT on a hot coffee cup, etc, to expedite the process.

Though one easy step is to stop/halt all research on STDs/AIDS, etc. Use those research resources and funding on diseases that are not brought onto one self. If you're not smart enough to use f'ing rubber or at least keep it in your f'ing pants, then you deserve the risk of contracting STDs and die from it. It's like crying and being shocked at having lung cancer from smoking, despite there being a warning label telling you not to f'ing smoke. I don't understand why we're wasting so much resources trying to keep dumb asses alive.

Wow usually I agree with you on the statements you make but this one too cruel for me. STDs are a serious problem that should be part of the research effort. While I agree that people should be more responsible in using condoms and carefully selecting partners it is not enough.

For one people are not all educated the same way about sex. Some grow up believing that sex is sinful and bad and therefore anything associated with it like condoms and STD education is sinful also. If those people were able to be taught differently from birth they would not have a problem.

Another problem is the handful of people it takes to perpetuate a STD. Most research in the transmission of AIDS suggest that when your population hits about 5% infection rate it soon explodes to a greater number of 20-30%. On top of that the people most likely to contract AIDS are those that are skilled and play a crucial role in the functioning of the country (such as doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers). This can cause instability in the country which only causes AID to rise further. Some countries like Brazil realized this significant threat AIDS causes and devote a significant portion of their national budget to combat AIDs and have succeeded. This sums up to mean that anyone contracting AIDS for the first time increases that chance of you being infected.

Testing for STDs is also not as advanced as it should be. If you could get the results of an STD test back in 15 mins in a home kit it would do a lot to stem the spread. As it stands you currently have to wait weeks or months for test results. Say if you wanted your partner to get tested before you had unprotected sex for the first time. By the time you get the test results they are basically no longer valid because your partner could have had sex with someone else and contracted the disease after they took the test. If you had it in 15 mins it would be like putting on a condom. Test your partner as you start. Do some fore play while you wait for the 15 min. If its all clear you go for it. If it is not it just saved you from an itchy crotch or death.

Hunger and stress also contribute to the problem. When you live in a war zone hardly getting enough to eat each day and don't think much about living past the next week or day you are not too concerned about contracting disease that will kill you in 5 to 10 years. Your immediate satisfaction such as having sex is overwhelmingly more important than 5 years from now.

People also don't do what they say they do. Social research like the Kinsey report tell us that people don't wait to chose the perfect sex partners and play it safe all the time. People have sex before marraige, one night stands, and cheat on relationships quite often. I am not saying their is anything wrong with that but if you expect people to always be careful you will disappointed. If you expect that this won't affect you then see my point above about how small parts of the population can cause epidemics. As it stands most people in the U.S. have had sex at least once by the time they are 20 regardless of religious background. That has also been pretty consistent throughout history.

In summation if STDs were so easy to get rid of by natural selection, eugenics, or whatever other thing you want to call letting people die off then we would have solved the problem by now with social and religious training like no sex till you are married and you can only have one sex partner all your life. If that stuff held then STDs would be wipped out.

[Grimlorn]

I'm pretty sure OP is one of the under average people he seems to despise so much if he thinks there is plausibility to Idiocracy. It's a funny movie, but that's all it is. We'll probably have genetic engineering within the next 100 years and it will only take one country making it legal for all countries to have to make it legal to compete properly.

Of course there are stupid people in the world, but thinking they need to be wiped out doesn't say anything about them but says a lot about you. You have to be pretty arrogant and egotistical to believe your life is worth more than someone with a lower IQ than you. I'm sure there are ton of people with IQs of 80 to 90 or whatever that will accomplish more or the same with their lives than most of you will.



China has to put a limit on population growth because they don't have the resources to take care of a much larger population. Children would probably starve if China let it's population grow on it's own.

[phrakk]

What about people who ride motorcycles? Those are dangerous, and people know it. Do we institute global "do no resuscitate" laws for riders in accidents? Think of how many resources we'd save!

What about people in the military? They knew they were likely going to get shot, and they get paid pretty well to do so. Fuck them too, right? They knew the dangers. What about people who break the speed limits in their cars? What about people who don't put soft corners on their furniture? Or people who skateboard? Or anyone susceptible to certain diseases? We'd kill off the disease entirely if only people who are immune are allowed to live! Children from bad homes are statistically less likely to grow up and run good households, increasing the amount of bad family values in society! Should we smelt their genitals, too?

Strawmen aside, the whole thing is ridiculous. Here's a better/nicer idea: Let's help everyone we conceivably can, because it's the ethical thing to do.

[TheGhostAgent]

This whole thing you're saying here scares the shit out of me. You really believe that anyone who has sex or smokes deserves to die, and painfully? As somebody who does both enjoyable activities in moderation, I'd just like to say "Screw you right back."

Yes, you do. Oh noes screw me right back... I'm hurt?

Due to limited resources, we can't exactly save everyone on the damn planet. Much of it can be better spent on people who actually deserve it. I've seen way too many kids dying from cancers and diseases from which they have no choice or control of. You on the other hand, or rather everyone here on the other hand which I'm hoping are mature enough, have said control and choices. If you choose to indulge in an activity which has been consecutively shown to cause many diseases, not just cancer alone, you should be put 2nd in line of care over everyone else.

Do you honestly believe your priority in care is far greater than that of a child? They did not choose to end up in their circumstance, you did. With strained resources, I'd save the kid over any smoker patient anytime, anywhere, etc. Not even if it's just a kid then, assume 3 patients requiring a lung transplant immediately.

2 of them are dying from an incredibly rare lung cancer which their life activity had no responsibility in. One of them is a chain smoker. Who will get the 2 lungs coming in and ready for transplant? 1 for the smoker and 1 for the non-smoker just to be fair? Or all 2 for the non-smokers? If you want to take risks with your own life, knock yourself out. Just don't be selfish in the end and strip resources away from the people that actually take care of themselves.

And observer, no shit there's more than 1 way to get aids. Needle sharing, birth, etc. Once again, drugs, wtf did you expect? Birth, unfortunate, can't help that your parents are retarded. This is one of exception due to the baby's innocence in their parent's stupidity. Strictly speaking, I'd be questioning whether prolonging the life of the genes of dumb asses is a smart move, but once again this kid has done no wrong is was simply in the wrong womb at the wrong time.

@kesserling;
You knew the risks, you participated, you can't cry. gtfo. And speaking of religion, even more lulzy. I thought god/faith/etc was supposed to make one more moral/ethical? Oh shi-....

And yes people cheat, yes people lie, what else is new? I've known this for quite some time. If I decide to go off tomorrow and have unprotected sex like the average horny bastard and get infected, I don't expect any sympathy for me. In fact no, I want none. I made my choice, I knew the risks, so I'm going to man it up and take up the punishment rather than be a cry baby about it. We're rewarding people for their stupidity, no thx.

As for epidemics, exactly of which kind are you talking about? Sexually related ones with other more infectious diseases operate quite differently. One you can try to quarantine (although that's getting more difficult due to our adv. transportation), the other you have no control over their sexual libido. And I can't believe that I'm running into a such a statement: "People have sex before marraige, one night stands, and cheat on relationships quite often. I am not saying their is anything wrong with that but if you expect people to always be careful you will disappointed." Are you BALKING MAD?! Of COURSE you should be able to say something is wrong and f'ed up with that. What is this, reward the promiscuous and cheaters day?

As it stands most people in the U.S. have had sex at least once by the time they are 20 regardless of religious background. That has also been pretty consistent throughout history.

Fuck 'em. If you cannot control yourself and let your hormones control your rational part of your brain, I don't want you in my society. The very aspect of such people running our systems should be more frightening than my suggestion of making people accountable for their actions.

In summation if STDs were so easy to get rid of by natural selection, eugenics, or whatever other thing you want to call letting people die off then we would have solved the problem by now with social and religious training like no sex till you are married and you can only have one sex partner all your life. If that stuff held then STDs would be wipped out.

Unfortunately, abstinence programs have been proven to be ineffective and on the contrary, was a negative influence in preventing the spread of STDs. All that's left is teaching them safe sex if you're going to engage in risky behaviors, but just know if you fuck up, you better not be crying when that HIV test result is positive.

@phrakk:
Run the probabilities then and risk/rewards/loss then.

2 emergency patients comes rolling in.
Both are equally in critical condition and need immediate attention, you only have one OT(operating team) left and every other team is currently busy.
Patient 1: Car accident due to be hit by a drunk driver.
Patient 2: Drunk driver, speeding driver, motorcyclist, or just insert any dangerous activity here which produces/contributes nothing to society. (The disclaimer is to counter off military volunteers, firefighters, etc)
Who will you be saving?

Time is ticking and your resources is limited.

This post has been edited by TheGhostAgent: Jul 2 2008, 02:21 PM