Did you even read all of my post before deciding to compare me to Hitler? For a moment, let's just go ahead and compare the differences between our theories, our methodologies and our goals:

• My goal is the improvement of the entire human species, not some arbitrary subset of it.
• I do not believe that any arbitrary subset of the human species, particularly any ethnic or religious group, is intrinsically inferior to the whole.
• I do not believe that improvement of the human species can be achieved by attempting to create "racial purity".
• I do not support the forced sterilization or extermination of any person.
• I do not support any government regulation or restriction on breeding, except possibly regulation on some reproductive technologies.
• I am not a ranting, anti-Semitic lunatic.

So, shall we proceed to actually argue against the argument I'm making, instead of an irrational, inhuman argument that we bombed out of existence sixty years ago?

__________________

IMO, Changing the "wrapper" does nothing to change the "product." Whether that "irrational, inhuman argument" has been "bombed out of existence," is at best, debatable.

Quoted portions are snipped all out of order-- my apologies, if anyone feels that I have misrepresented them.

The evidence I've seen shows intelligence is about ~.7 biologically inheritable-- and that most of the "improvement" shown in improved socioeconomic conditions and with greater intellectual stimulation is a matter of making up for deficiencies which artificially suppress the expression of intelligence.

Don't think for a second that I'd be neglecting the schools. With programs such as these in place-- hopefully leading to the births of far more gifted children-- I think that school reform would be more necessary than ever. Our schools do a remarkably poor job with gifted students.

I think it's obviously far more complicated than a single gene-- especially considering differences in the various kinds of intellectual functioning, and how different exceptional talents appear linked to different mental dysfunctions.

---

Oh, my. Having a preference for married couples raising children, and for couples who have enough money to support themselves before raising children makes me some sort of classist? Guess I'll throw myself before the mercy of the court.

Here I was, thinking I was just being sensible.

Oh, I absolutely agree with this. The only nod I'm making to discrimination on income level is not wishing to encourage higher birth rates among people who can't afford to support a child properly-- that's not a eugenic concern, so much as a societal concern.

What I would really like is for society to be structured so that people who would be fit parents, and people with innate talents, are universally or near-universally capable of achieving financial security and functioning according to their talents. Unfortunately, our society is more than content to discard such people, if they have the misfortune of having been born into the wrong families.

---

I would certainly be interested, assuming that my opinion counts.

__________________

I am really confused as to how you can look at the different goals, and the very different methods, and claim that what I am suggesting is the "same product" as Nazi atrocities-- or even the ham-fisted fumbling of our own eugenics policies.

I'm not trying to create a "master race", unless you count uplifting the entire human race into one.

__________________

@KtR

K...I'll give it a try (the lit search), but I can't promise anything, since this week is gonna be pretty busy...I may have some spare time since things can get cancelled.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

With the genome being decoded, and advances in genetics, it would appear eugenics has a much greater chance at achieving its goals. Without some degree of compulsion forcing a compliance to the rules of eugenics, the overall goal of an improved society will never be reached.

I believe the compulsion can be done in a manner that is socially acceptable. Perhaps allowing tax deductions for dependants only to those parents whose children can be predicted to be superior is one means; all others would be on thier own. Many other ideas surely abound.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

KtR, you certainly have a flair for bringing up controversial but generally ignored topics; I like it.

I think I could certainly get behind a number of the things you mentioned, such as a "high standard of prenatal care for every pregnant woman", "improve[d] access to reproductive technology" (I though have issues with abortion), and "temporary sterilization," provided that the last was voluntary and desired by the individual. But beyond that, I become wary.

Eugenics tends to walk (and often cross over) the fine line between making the future better for people and making "better people" for the future.
For example, you stated that we have "a moral obligation to provide the best for our children," but most of the programs you described aren't about providing the best for our children, they're about providing us with the "best" children.
A cure for cancer would be about providing a better future for our children.
Genetically screening out those with cancer-prone DNA would be about providing "better" children for the future.
It's the difference between trying to make kids smarter (through, say, better education) and trying to make smarter kids (through, say, genetic engineering).

Eugenics programs, by and large, are primarily devoted to "improving" the race, society, or (if we are to be all inclusive) the species. Frankly, I don't really care about improving any of those except for how they incidentally improve the lives of actual, living, individual people. To rephrase the previous example:
A cure for cancer is about helping individual people; it also just happens to benefit society as a whole.
Genetically screening out those with cancer-prone DNA is about improving the species as a whole; it might just happen to improve the lives of individual people, but its no good pretending that it helps the "lives" of those people who were eliminated in the screening process.
Eugenics isn't about curing the sick or educating the ignorant or any of that. It's about making sure that those who are not sick or ignorant don't have to put up with those who are.

In conclusion, I would so much rather take all the money you'd give as subsidies to manipulate the gene pool or encourage sterilization of the "unfit," and spend it on improving education, health care and physical fitness for real, living, people.

EDIT:
Oh! I was also curious as to why you named the thread "liberal eugenics" and not just "eugenics"? What's the difference?

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

I thought it had been decided decades ago that only the ruling elite would have any choice in those matters. The rest will be forced to attend public schools and universities while reproducing in their normal, haphazard manner.

Here's a thought I just had about the idea of eugenics: If all humans were improved to the same ideal, wouldn't life be pretty boring (socially speaking)?

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I'm fairly certain that under Korimyr's goals, we(as a society endorsing them) would not be pushing all humans to a limited goal but rather a simply pushing humanity to be smarter and more fit with the wide range of genetic, cultural, and personal diversity we have today.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Thanks for clarifying. Life would not be too boring then.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Honestly, if our government were to implement all three of those policies in a serious fashion, I would be delighted. Ecstatic.. Those three policies would have a considerable impact on current dysgenic trends-- and, at the very least, would significantly reduce the rate of non-genetic birth defects and children born to unsuitable homes.

They are one and the same. People with fewer genetic defects will have fewer health problems and will be able to lead better lives; people with advanced physical fitness and intelligence will be capable of greater accomplishments, and thus make the world better for everyone.

Either way, we would no longer suffer from cancer. How many generations of humans do you think will die of cancer, before this "cure" is invented? What is the difference, then, if we simply incorporate the "cure" into future generations of humans?

I see both as moral obligations, and actually see both as fulfilling the same purpose. Either way, what you are providing for is the best possible capacity for those children to succeed in life.

While I understand that you'd rather spend all of the money I'd spend on these programs on your suggested alternatives, I'd like to point out that I wouldn't neglect your ideas at all-- indeed, aside from healthcare, an improved human species would have greater need for both academics and sport. Of course, the drive for prenatal fitness and nutrition, combined with prenatal healthcare, would probably lead to some form of quality universal healthcare as well.

Really, I try to make as many of my political positions as logically cohesive and complementary as possible.

I don't have the means to figure out exactly how much money would be needed for these programs to be effective, but I am certain that with sufficient political interest-- which I realistically understand will never happen-- the monies could be freed up from other, less valid, expenditures or generated in some fashion. Honestly, I think I would rather prefer that these programs be conducted privately, via trust fund or charitable foundation.

To differentiate it from the eugenics policies of the early 20th Century, which all involved various degrees of coercion and intrusive government authority. Along with the Nazi program which I've been accused of imitating, there were also the programs in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Denmark... and so forth, which most people conveniently forget.

"Liberal eugenics" is about incentives and choice, and helping people make the good reproductive decisions that the majority of them would like to make, if they had the resources.

__________________

Possible relationship between the COMT gene VelMet...[Neuropsychobiology. 2007] - PubMed Result

Moderation of breastfeeding effects on the IQ by g...[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007] - PubMed ResultResolving the IQ paradox: heterosis as a cause of ...[Psychol Rev. 2007] - PubMed ResultThis is what I could find in the little time I had to spend on it.
I imagine you would like more information so a good idea would be to go to, PubMed Home and do a search.It is public access, but mostly for the abstracts. If full articles are needed for the abstracts that interest you, you would have to purchase them.

I know little about if there is an intelligence gene or not. My impression is they are still trying to pin one down, yet are making some progress.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I smell a Rat!