Most exciting thing to happen this year

[Humodour]

What you are describing first is not what is meant by the term "eugenics", but is the description of an evolutory process. It becomes eugenics when anything beyond nature/disposition is involved, like the government. It is then an inherently brutal, anti-social and, subjectively speaking, despicable form of violence.

 

Eugenics has no inherent link with government, politics or violence. These things have merely used eugenics as a scapegoat in the past, for things like genocide.

[Guest The Architect]

So most post-war Eugenics ideas appear to be fine, but before that the only known idea was selective breeding, which involves the intervention of forces beyond nature. Genocide is the systematic killing of all people from a national, ethnic or religious group, or an attempt to do this.

 

That's not eugenics. Eugenics is different in that the women deemed worthy enough for survival are encouraged to breed with the men worthy enough for survival, like in the Nazi era there'd be cash prizes and medals offered to Aryan women who had lots of kids.

 

I don't see how dysgenics is what I described earlier, since that's talking about breeding that's negatively effected because of the bad management and lack of intervention from forces outside of nature.

[Humodour]

So most post-war Eugenics ideas appear to be fine, but before that the only known idea was selective breeding, which involves the intervention of forces beyond nature. Genocide is the systematic killing of all people from a national, ethnic or religious group, or an attempt to do this.

 

That's not eugenics. Eugenics is different in that the women deemed worthy enough for survival are encouraged to breed with the men worthy enough for survival, like in the Nazi era there'd be cash prizes and medals offered to Aryan women who had lots of kids.

 

Dysgenics/eugenics was used to try and justify genocide. E.g.: the holocaust.

 

I don't see how dysgenics is what I described earlier, since that's talking about breeding that's negatively effected because of the bad management and lack of intervention from forces outside of nature.

 

Dysgenics is the outcome people feared from lack of eugenics; dysgenics is what people feared because it 'threatened' eugenics.

 

These days we know these irrational fears of dysgenics to be pretty much false; Jews aren't lesser beings, Aryans aren't superior beings.

[Gorth]

The effects of language on our society are indeed pernicious; words like faith, evidence, reason, science

A completely uninteresting piece of trivia: 'Faith' doesn't exist in danish. We use 'Belief' and 'Trust' to describe the phenomena.

[Guest The Architect]

Dysgenics/eugenics was used to try and justify genocide. E.g.: the holocaust.

 

True, but the part of eugenics being wrong or evil the way it was used then that I should've made clear before, was the sterilisation of "inferior" women and men. Genocide happened after, during the war, but the sterilisation law came into effect in Nazi Germany on the 14th of July, 1933. Eugenics isn't inherently evil, no, but it can be abused and become evil because of its effects on civilisation, just not inherently evil. But then of course the perpetrators are to blame more so.

 

Dysgenics is the outcome people feared from lack of eugenics; dysgenics is what people feared because it 'threatened' eugenics.

 

These days we know these irrational fears of dysgenics to be pretty much false; Jews aren't lesser beings, Aryans aren't superior beings.

 

Of course not, however these fears might not be as irrational as you think. For example, demographic studies indicate that the more intelligent and better educated women in the wealthier nations of the world have much lower reproductive rates than the less educated, which has led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations. Although I'm not sure how strong the correlation is between intelligence and hereditariness, but it is something to take into consideration.

Edited February 28, 2008 by The Architect

[Humodour]

Heh. Watch Idiocracy.

 

Its potential truth scares me.

[Tigranes]

or example, demographic studies indicate that the more intelligent and better educated women in the wealthier nations of the world have much lower reproductive rates than the less educated, which has led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations.

 

Probably has more to do with other factors working in concert with intelligence/education. e.g. The latent discourse that mothers are still disadvantaged in their careers, while fathers are not as much: the fact that these more intelligent women with careers and higher income / social status are not as keen to get in divorces involving children: etc, etc. Still, this doesn't necessarily hurt your point, Architect.

 

Idiocracy had some excellent (and scary) points to make actually - e.g. the electrolydes in their energy drink. It's not so different from us gulping down imported food from China, high fructose corn syrup in US food, frozen food from god knows where, etc, etc.

 

Why are you giving your plants this energy drink instead of water?

It's got electrolydes in it.

What's electrolydes?

It's what plants love! *guffaw*

Why do they love electrolydes?

Cause...cause... MAN ITS GOT ELECTROLYDES, MAN.

[Azarkon]

Dysgenics is the outcome people feared from lack of eugenics; dysgenics is what people feared because it 'threatened' eugenics.

 

These days we know these irrational fears of dysgenics to be pretty much false; Jews aren't lesser beings, Aryans aren't superior beings.

 

Not entirely. A resurgence of dysgenic fears is taking place, currently, especially in relation to immigration and the changing demographics of previously "homogeneous" countries. This time, it's backed by a combination of pseudo-science and anti-PC "rationalism," which in effect is a reactionary throwback to the days when "race" mattered. The implications of this movement are hard to predict, as the situation has not yet reached a point when a politician could actually build a legitimate platform on being "anti-PC" with respect to race. I'm sure our resident "racialists" can tell you more.

 

Ultimately, I think the more interesting question is not whether dysgenic fears are irrational, but whether morality falls apart in the face of the "greater good." It's one thing to say that our societies are built on the assumption that "all men are created equal," another altogether to say that those are the principles by which we choose to live, regardless of whether they're true. As technology progresses and we attain greater understanding of the human species, I can only imagine that the question of eugenics vs. dysgenics will become all the more urgent. I do not think that liberal-humanism has yet recognized the fundamental threat science poses to its ideological basis, and that opponents are already chipping away at the pillars that support its doctrines. We shall have to see whether liberal-humanism can reinvent itself in the face of factual contradictions with its most basic assumptions - and what will happen if it does not.

 

These are interesting and worrisome times.

 

On closing, just to make my point a little more concrete, let me pose this question: if it were discovered that, indeed, certain groups are vastly superior to other groups in terms of, say, quantitative intelligence (math, science, engineering, etc.), and that the skills possessed by such groups are necessary for the running of a technological society, what should be done with regards to our social policy? Should it change at all? What if said groups are "threatened" by other, competing groups of "lesser" intelligence, and are hence in danger of becoming marginalized by virtue of their numbers ala Idiocracy? Should the government intervene and, in effect, engage in coercive eugenics? Or should it remain passive, and risk the "degeneration" of society?

 

Idiocracy is not as innocuous as you might think. Like all satire, it conceals an element of truth.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

In fact I think both descriptions of eugenics support my original point: science can be made to serve either good or evil, in the same way as faith.

[Humodour]

I don't actually believe it's possible to "dumb-down" a species like humans, Azarkon.

 

You can say what you want about IQ tests, but humans are a fundamentally language and society driven species. These things provide fundamental lower bounds on what our brains can achieve... not to mention little evidence for the heritability of small modern-day intelligence deviations, but much evidence for the extreme plasticity, adaptability and nurturability of the human brain (most people have basically the same brain and capabilities - on a basic level, humans just aren't dumb).

 

If the human species gets dumb, it's not likely to occur in the next few thousand years, and further it's something that we would easily evolve back away from due to increased intelligence individuals becoming fitter again.

 

Walsingham: agreed.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Krezack

[Pop]

Any sort of idea of evolution that involves linearity or degree (devolution, etc.) is a non-concept completely without merit. People are confused enough as it is to what natural selection entails.

 

Anyway, getting back on topic, if Turkey wants to revise the hadith, they're not going to get away with it. The hadith pertains more to history than law, and Turkey's had a long history of smothering cultural identities as it has moved towards modernization, such that they're under constant watch. It comes down to how much trouble they want to make for themselves. The Sharia is subject to local custom, so they've got more leeway with that.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Pop

[Humodour]

Not really.

 

Turkey can change the hadiths and Koran all it wants. It's got the power to do so.

 

What it perhaps doesn't have the power to do is bring the majority of the Muslim world over to its point of view.

 

Even so, no doubt a schism will form, and many Muslims worldwide would join, seeing a brighter, vibrant, more modern Islam as the logical choice.

 

Sharia law isn't subject to local customs; it is based 90% off religious texts. Some localities might decide that parts of it are or aren't applicable, but in general, Sharia law isn't a local thing.

 

EDIT: And "under constant watch"? So what? You can't fight ideas with bullets. If a new Islam is to form, sanctions against the country it is forming in won't stop it. And said sanctions aren't about to come from the West; the EU supports this move.

 

And can you explain why you think transitional evolution is without merit? Because you're certainly going against the grain of conventional biology there.

 

One of the many reasons I don't see 'stupidity' becoming favourable in humans is the massive compartmentalisation which characterises the human brain. It's one massive equilibrium system which will account for even large deviations relatively smoothly.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Krezack