Originally Posted by Si modo

I find the topic intriguing, yet a pipedream.

Originally Posted by Si modo

And who would that be, rabbit?

Originally Posted by Si modo

Anything to add to it?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

The one thing that any child needs more than anything is love and yet, no one mentions it. KRat mentions voluntary sterilization for those of low intelligence, poor health, etc. as if these people aren't capable of providing the one basic thing a child needs to grow up happy and healthy. I think people put far too much emphasis on intelligence in children and forget that they ARE children. Too many want to stick them in pre-school as soon as they're potty-trained so the kid will have an "advantage" on others. Bullshit! Let a kid be a kid, love them, work with them at home and stop trying to turn them into robots for the world to abuse when they're grown!

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Hey, I am just happy somebody still has the stones to dream big!

Nearly every political discussion I get into devolves into a litany of reasons why something cannot be done. This depresses me, and seems a good indicator of why America is steadily losing ground...we've outsourced the can-do spirit.

Originally Posted by Si modo

Another optimist! Yipee! I shouldn't really judge it as a pipedream yet, as I don't know enough about it. But is is intriguing.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

The one thing that any child needs more than anything is love and yet, no one mentions it. KRat mentions voluntary sterilization for those of low intelligence, poor health, etc. as if these people aren't capable of providing the one basic thing a child needs to grow up happy and healthy. I think people put far too much emphasis on intelligence in children and forget that they ARE children. Too many want to stick them in pre-school as soon as they're potty-trained so the kid will have an "advantage" on others. Bullshit! Let a kid be a kid, love them, work with them at home and stop trying to turn them into robots for the world to abuse when they're grown!

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

The one thing that any child needs more than anything is love and yet, no one mentions it. KRat mentions voluntary sterilization for those of low intelligence, poor health, etc. as if these people aren't capable of providing the one basic thing a child needs to grow up happy and healthy.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I think people put far too much emphasis on intelligence in children and forget that they ARE children. Too many want to stick them in pre-school as soon as they're potty-trained so the kid will have an "advantage" on others. Bullshit! Let a kid be a kid, love them, work with them at home and stop trying to turn them into robots for the world to abuse when they're grown!

Originally Posted by partofme

I think your are on to something that you do not even realize. I was listening to a report on NPR about a study that found that kids with too much structure and rules tend to be less creative because they are being made to do something the right way instead of creating their own fun. It also seems that children with toys tend to adjust their play to the toy when not having one lets them come up with their own amusement. So really in some ways having structured activities all the time isn't necessarily a completely good thing.

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

Eugenics can be defined both as the science of human heredity, and a social philosophy that revolves around deliberate actions and policies designed to "improve" the human species through several means, including encouraging desired genetic traits and/or discouraging negative genetic traits. Sir Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics" in 1883 and developed many of the scientific and philosophical aspects associated with it. Over the next fifty years, this movement enjoyed widespread success and prestige all over the Western world, from the United States to Sweden and the United Kingdom-- and also in Nazi Germany, from which the majority of modern objections to eugenics derive.

I believe that the pursuit of eugenic ideals is still morally valid, despite the mistakes committed in the past. Both on a societal level and on an individual level, I believe that we have both a strong interest and a moral obligation to provide the best for our children. Whether this is the best healthcare, the best nutrition, the best education, or the best genetic foundation, we should take every reasonable step to ensure that our children and our neighbors' children have the best chance to be healthy, happy, and successful.

And I believe that there are ways that we can pursue these goals without violating human rights, or being distracted with foolish racist ideologies. First and foremost, we need to ensure a high standard of prenatal care for every pregnant woman. Even outside the context of universal healthcare, prenatal care is a sound investment in the wellbeing and productivity of future American citizens. Second, I believe that we need to improve access to reproductive technology, including abortion, temporary sterilization, prenatal genetic screening, fertility treatments, and eventually deliberate engineering. People who have the information to make eugenic choices and the means to do so will make eugenic choices more often than not.

These methods, however controversial, are widely considered acceptable, and, indeed, are often not regarded to be "eugenics" at all.

What I would like to propose for consideration are more directed-- but still strictly voluntary-- programs for the improvement of the genepool.

One idea I would like to see implemented is a larger scale version of the much maligned Repository for Germinal Choice, which was a sperm bank specifically for Nobel laureates and other individuals of demonstrably high IQ. I'd like to see this expanded to a weighted scale that includes IQ, actual intellectual accomplishments, measurable markers for physical fitness, athletic accomplishments, and known genetic traits. Further, I would like to see this program solicit donations of sperm and eggs from qualified donors, and subsidize use of this genetic material for fertility treatments in recipients who meet similar but more lax qualifications.

Second, I would like to see a general birth subsidy for married couples with incomes above the poverty line. Though this doesn't specifically target genetic fitness, statistically it will favor people more capable of producing and raising healthy and successful children-- not to mention help to counter the tendency of financially stable families to have fewer children. More importantly, this would establish at least a minor cultural precedent of recognizing that producing healthy children within stable families is something to be encouraged and celebrated, contrary to cultural values which view raising a large family with suspicion.

The third program I would like to see is paying people determined to be genetically unfit-- low intelligence, poor overall health, or identified genetic defects-- to voluntarily sterilize themselves. They would still retain the full choice in whether or not to do so, but it would make it easier for those already inclined to do so, and provide incentive for ones who are not committed to raising a family. Subsidizing temporary sterilization for anyone who requests it would have a similar effect, and allow people who are interested in having a family later, when they are more financially and domestically stable, to securely delay their reproduction and have a better chance of raising successful children later.

---

Comments are welcome.

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

I think liberal was used in the classical sense, i.e. allowing individual choice, in order to differentiate it from the first 'eugenics' that comes to most people's mind - the Nazi's governmentally-enforced concept of the 'master race'. I agree that "American liberals" would never go for such a plan, as they need a large underclass to maintian their electoral base.

You do have a good point there. This is the main disagreement I have with the OP's plan - the rest sounds pretty good to me.


A more indirect approach to the OP goal that I've gotten slammed for proposing is to make governmental welfare benefits conditional upon long-term birth control - very similar to his 'paid voluntary sterilization'.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Hell, I could have told them that without the expense of a study! These days, parents don't give their children empty refrigerator boxes to play with or a wooden spoon and a pan...instead they buy fancy playhouses and drum sets so there's really not a whole lot of "pretending" for kids to do. Many parents don't realize that "newer" doesn't necessarily mean "better" and so they'll buy into all the crap the "professionals" claim will make kids smarter.
Another big problem is when little Johnny has sports on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, piano on Tuesday, and Boy Scouts on Thursday, it really doesn't leave too much family time, does it?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

The one thing that any child needs more than anything is love and yet, no one mentions it. KRat mentions voluntary sterilization for those of low intelligence, poor health, etc. as if these people aren't capable of providing the one basic thing a child needs to grow up happy and healthy. I think people put far too much emphasis on intelligence in children and forget that they ARE children. Too many want to stick them in pre-school as soon as they're potty-trained so the kid will have an "advantage" on others. Bullshit! Let a kid be a kid, love them, work with them at home and stop trying to turn them into robots for the world to abuse when they're grown!

Originally Posted by Johnny K

What a wonderful, insightful post! My hat is off to you, fair lady!

(Where's a tip of the hat emoticon when you need it?)