You shamed yourself.

The only person that should be embarrassed is the person that overreacted in this situation......meaning you.

My suggestion is if you intend on conducting a private conversation don't do it in the open. And if you don't like wise-cracks from trolls ignore them instead of cussing them out.

A thin skin does not serve anyone well here. Rat understands that even though my criticisms were directed at him. Why don't you?

And in case you still feel I don't know what is going on here check out this link.Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now I don't need to read every single posting to see that rat appears to be a bald man (shaved to be exact) who happens to be white which would give one the impression that if he is talking about eugenics and he has the AKA handle "God Among Insects" he could easily be a Skin-Head or part of the Aryan Nation.
The kicker was when he mentioned sterilization of those below the poverty-line.

Now if you want to continue conversing with the Devil, figuratively, please feel free.....................

You would be amazed at what you can be talked into if the argument is done in a lucid, intelligent, and convincing enough manner.

__________________


"We can't screw it up any worse than they have." - Barack Obama

Wanna bet?



"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...." - Rahm Emmanuel

As a long time friend(of Mexican descent) of Korimyr's, I'm pretty sure you've got him pegged wrong. It's been mentioned numerous times within this thread that there is no racial motivation in his goals though you really can't trust that alone but arguing against a point nobody's made is pretty foolish. I'll also point out that, according to the US Census Bureau, in 2006 whites were only underrepresented below the poverty level by two percent meaning that nearly half of all people below said poverty level are white. Doesn't really make sense to want to eliminate all that good Arian stock if you're a white supremacist.

__________________
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

I guess mentioning race would turn off too many people so it is not mentioned. But this is still just dancing around the issue.

He was talking about volunteer sterilization of poor folks or sellective breeding among the more intelligent and educated and I think that is where he goes wrong. Too many great people in history were born poor or from uneducated parents.

__________________


"We can't screw it up any worse than they have." - Barack Obama

Wanna bet?



"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...." - Rahm Emmanuel

Actually, that's evidence that you haven't read the thread. Not only did I post that exact link-- as the first visible word in the OP-- but I mentioned the Nazis' eugenics programs as one of the failures of the early eugenics movement and posted that I had no interest in "foolish racist ideologies".

Which would have included not only the Nazis, but the inherently racist elements of the American and British eugenics programs of the time as well.

Yes, I shave my head and according to American racial classifications, I'm "white". I am not "racially pure", however-- I have some small measure of both Native American and African descent within the last five or six generations. I shave my head because my hair naturally-- and uncontrollably-- grows in a hairstyle that hasn't been fashionable (at least for "white" people) since the '70s and because my hairline is receding.

I've actually mentioned this before, in the thread. I am not qualified for membership in any "Aryan" supremacist/separatist organization-- nor would I wish to be, since their politics are uniformly toxic, their societal goals disgusting, and what little support for eugenics they might still hold is contaminated with their racist stupidity.

As far as my AKA title, it's taken from a quote by a fictional Jew, about the future evolution of the human race and the role that the superior beings must take in this evolution. It's Magneto, from X-Men 2, talking to a young man who is dismissive of his gifts: "You are a god among insects. Never let anyone tell you different."

It's something I believe in. And something I try to convince other people to believe in, when they are uncertain of their own ability to change the world.

Actually, I believe what I mentioned was a birth subsidy for everyone above the poverty line, and voluntary sterilization for anyone who requested it. I did suggest sterilization for people with verified genetic defects-- as something that we should assist with, if they volunteer for the procedure.

Mentioning eugenics turns off most people, but I'm still perfectly willing to express my views about it openly. And I have mentioned race several times in this thread-- specifically to reject it as an outmoded, irrational system of classification that should have no bearing on modern attempts to improve the human species.

I mentioned race in my first post, because I knew that it would be the first objection. I suppose I shouldn't have bothered, since six pages later people are still operating under the misguided assumption that my agenda has anything to do with race-- despite the fact that I have stated unequivocally that it does not.

__________________

I agree with you on this point. I honestly think the best genetic stock comes from the lower class(and I'm certain the most socially capable people come from the middle class down). Between a couple generations of trophy wives diluting what it took to put an ancestor higher on the economic ladder and the fact that mate selection in the poor(outside the welfare community) is more closely based on fitness as a parent the resulting offspring of poor couples is far superior in my humble opinion.

__________________
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

The only time I mentioned race was in describing a type of political group. I did not say unequivocally that you were indeed a white supremacist but I did say that you showed many of the signs of being one.

The reason eugenics is a touchy subject is because you are deciding who has the right to exist by their parentage or their working class background or various other variables. This is something that should not be manipulated by anyone. I know that the longer the topic is discussed the more likely more and more people will think it is an acceptable practice and thus the sooner it may become a reality. The key to any outlandish political position is persistance and the longer you hold onto your views the more likely you can sway others to that viewpoint.

Most people would say that I am white from my appearance but in fact I have American Indian and Italian blood along with a a rare blood type which seems to be prevailent in American Indians. There are so many of us here in the US that have Indian blood that it's not really worth mentioning unless you're a tribal member and not many of us knows who they are related to beyond 10 generations anyway. Perhaps we all have African blood in us.

__________________


"We can't screw it up any worse than they have." - Barack Obama

Wanna bet?



"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...." - Rahm Emmanuel

I believe that with modern jet transport, environmental degradation and mega-large populations pandemics are as great a threat as they have ever been.

Indeed, experts are tracking a very large potential one right now (aka Bird Flu).

1. If you are not advocating the program to be anything but a small scale thing, then why bother given that the scale you supposedly propose would probably be too small to have the effects you seek. Big effects need big policies.

2. I question anyone's attempt to meddle with things. I'm not aware of anything wrong with human breeding habits. I don't think anyone is aware of any problem with human breeding habits except those who favor some kind of eugenics policy. I suspect the disposition to eugenics policies is what drives the need to see a problem with human breeding habits. A desired solution in search of a problem to be applied to, as it were.

Sounds to me like you are a) aknowledging my point (that group organization is prone to human error) and b) making an argument that devalues your own argument.

That is to say, in order to reduce the likelihood of your programs turning out nasty, you seek to introduce precisely the one element that supposedly is the cause of the breeding problem you seek to 'fix'. Good old random human subjectivity.

Personally, I think random human subjectivity works just fine for breeding. You haven't even come close to convincing me that there is a problem with human breeding, let alone one that requires, needs or would benefit from any program of eugenic improvement.

The big question remains, why?

On a practical basis, I just do not see how any society that even remotely considers itself to be 'democratic' could possibly permit any governmental definition of who is to be 'encouraged to breed' and 'who is not to be encouraged'. The introduction of this key distinction is the marker of an officially designated class-distinction in society.

Indeed, the fact that us westerners have spent the last 200 years making war on officially designated class-based distinctions in society suggests to me that your program is inherently reactionary by definition.

As I've noted previously, your policy seems to be very strongly condusive to abuse by rightwing political elements (who may not share your goals, but sure would like to use your program for their policies). My analysis of the political nature of your policy (the class distinction) suggests that avoiding a rightwing extremist result from your program would likely be darn near impossible.

That is to say, once society or the government formally recognizes a distinction between 'those who are best suited for breeding and therefore ought to be encouraged' and 'those who are not' you have entered the world of class-based war. Such a distinction, once established, can then be used to justify all manner of other distinctions.

And if these voluntary eugenics programs are only meant to be applied to a minority few, that makes democracy impossible. The majority will not pay/support a program that only benefits some small minority that they are not a part of. Ergo, the majority must not be allowed to have power, in order for your program to continue beyond the first few years of its initial adoption under YOUR goals. If those goals are minority goals, one cannot use a democratic system to run them. You must have an authoritarian political system - no other system is logically able to apply your program, other than in the most 'watered down' or general sense of the idea - which we already to some extent follow (offering some substantial social/legal/tax benefits to 'middle-class' married people with children and not to others).

To go beyond the programs we already have, I believe cannot be done under a democratic process.

I strongly disagree with your logic here.

The strongest determinant of the number of children a person will have is socio-economic class and income status. High relative incomes correspond to low birthrates and relatively low incomes correspond with low birthrates.

This pattern long predates the industrial revolution and modern society. It has only become more noticable given that our modern 'quasi-capitalist' society is enormously productive and makes a larger proportion of our society comparatively wealthy (and thus, have lower birthrates).

This is a natural, logical and rational consequence of our socio-economic system. It has nothing to do with intelligence or education directly. Education can affect this but only indirectly by increasing the income potentials of any given person. Ergo, the distinction you presume to draw (and treat) as a genetic one is in fact entirely caused by our socio-economic culture.

In other words, your medicine is entirely unsuited to apply to the disease you diagnose here. Socio-economic and cultural elements are best treated with politically applied public education policies and anti-poverty plans.

Indeed it is possible to do this. It is called authoritarian government. As I've noted above, your policies appear to need/require it.

And that is what truly drives my particular critique of your policy idea. I'm a democrat - I believe that democracy is the best defense of my liberty. Ergo, anything that is not inherently democratic, I cannot support.

That's a fancy way of ignoring the fact that ALL modern food shortages occur only under authoritarian regimes. Food shortages are always political. They are a very crude but highly effective 'tool' that authoritarian regimes use to control the re-locations of their populations.

Oil is not artificially scarce. It really is scarce. We use lots and more every year. There is only a limited amount of the stuff. It is pure logic to say it will run out to nothing soon enough. Demand has outstripped new production consistently for a couple of decades now. Simple math points to a relatively near end-date. Whether it is 2042 or 2052 doesn't matter so much.

Indeed, I repeat, one of the key problems with oil is our fantastically efficient distribution of that product. It is real easy to buy/sell on every corner of about half the planet. Indeed, one can sit a home and have it delivered - either by direct gas-pipe or by delivery trucks.

No, a distribution problem is the one thing that our oil dependency does not entail. It is entirely a problem of supply (limited) and demand (infinite).

Likewise with agriculture. Our supply has outstripped demand in every year of the last half century or so. This is the opposite problem with oil.

And any system of agriculture that allows me to eat New Zealand lamb with fresh new potatoes from South America for dinner in North America in the dead of winter, with fresh oranges and mangos for dessert (from who knows where), cannot be said to have a 'distribution problem'. Indeed, I suspect my beloved New Zealand lamb is probably as cheap and available to me as it is to any New Zealander.

Actually, huge new sprawling suburbs in Arizona and Nevada are possible only because of fantastically efficient distribution systems for food, water and energy.

Our systems may fail to distribute these things in the socially conscious way that some would like to see, but to say that our system fails to distribute these things in a highly efficient way is absurd.

Social-legal-tax benefits to married couples, tax benefits (credits/rebates) for raising children, education programs paid by general tax revenues (a subsidy for all parents), etc.

And all of these programs are designed to assist the middle class to raise children (that economically they are discouraged from having). All of these type programs can be found in every western country.

And sex education and contraception is a public service for the middle class. They are the ones most obsessed with controling (limiting) their breeding rates. They are the ones who risk their social status by breeding and thus seek to limit it. Giving this stuff to poor people is just a game to try to get them to slow down their breeding. It doesn't work.

The poor always benefit from breeding. That's why they do so much of it. More hands means more labor means more income. It is that simple. This does not apply to middle class people. To them, more children just means more mouths to feed, clothe and educate (with expensive toys and really expensive higher education) and takes away time from selfish adult pursuits (that our economy thrives on).

A few more subsidies here and there ain't going to change this dynamic. The only way to really change this dynamic is to use a much more authoritarian approach to your policy proposal. And that's really, really ugly.

Tell that to the family of Portuguese immigrants that have the contract to clean our offices. They work and breed like rabbits. I don't dare inquire about their 'immigration status'. They are very efficient, effective, competent, capable, cheap and speak practically no English. Their children supply all the labor for this business enterprise run by mom & dad. As their many children grow to teen years, the company is able to expand.

Given that some 25-30% of the adult population of the USA works for wages at, near or below the minimum wage suggests that you have an unrealistic assessment of our modern economy.

Indeed, I'm in charge of doing most of the hiring at my place of employment. One rule I have is that manual labor can be hired in an hour. Always. I can have a hundred manual labors at my door in the morning for a single day of work if I want/need it. The difficulty of hiring people is directly proportional to the value/level of the skillbase desired. Skilled people are always in short supply and cheap manual labor is always a flooded market. And my city has an unemployment rate that always hovers around 5% or so. We have a very strong economy here almost all the time.

Blasted 17000 character limit!

You have a bizarre and twisted view of immigration. The vast majority of immigrants to the west are the best and brightest from the 3rd world. They are the ones who have the most reason to leave the cesspools where they were born and are the most able to succeed here.

Take Canada for example, a country with a sane immigration policy, Census Canada has reported in every census period on record going back for decades, that immigrants in Canada have higher levels of education than the average Canadian, and also have lower rates of criminal infractions, lower rates of imprisonment and lower rates of social service usage (welfare or unemployment benefits) than the average Canadian. The data on this subject is monotonously consistent. Canada also takes in more legal immigrants per year (per capita) than any other nation in the world over the last 30-40 years so you can't argue that Canada is 'cherry-picking'.

Secondly, I find that kind of 'immigrant culture' argument abhorent. Just think what a North American Indian might think about when you say that. From his perpective, that argument is a joke. That's because the argument itself is a joke.

If our culture dies out, that's because it deserved to die out, not because it got 'swamped' out by unfair competition.

If our culture is worth half as much as everyone says it is, then it is plenty strong enough to withstand immigrant waves ten times the size of the ones you speak of.

Whether they assimilate or not is irrelevant to me. Baseball caps are as silly as turbans. To say that one is 'good' and the other is 'bad' is just absurd.

But the fact is, immigrants most certainly are capable of upward mobility. You have to legally, socially, economically and culturally let them do it though - that's the tough part apparently.

Canada thrives on 3rd world immigration. I don't percieve my culture in the slightest danger and I live in a city that is 50% non-white and 50% foreign-born. This makes my city the most multicultural city on the planet. I perceive no threat to my culture whatsoever from this. If anything our culture is enriched by it.

Once again, the authoritarian model becomes necessary.

And I definitely don't like the space exploration/colonization thing either. That will require authoritarianism as well. The whole "escape hatch" mentality is ugly and only likely to encourage 'escapism' in response to our real environmental challenges. I'd rather see us deal with our problems rather than invest all in running away from them (where we would only repeat them).

No! You are implicitly assuming that intelligence is entirely a product of breeding again. It is not.

For a policy program that you haven't convinced anyone is necessary or serves any beneficial purpose save your own.

Its not you I'm worried about. Your program contains elements that are very easily construed as racial and will thus be highly attractive to racists for that reason.

And the political fact that poverty (and lack of decent education) is very closely aligned with race in the United States makes this point doubly important. Your policy speaks positively of those who are 'well educated' and speaks negatively of those who are not. In American political terms, that means 'whites' and 'blacks' whether you agree with that distinction or not, that's the reality.

That's why I keep alluding to the racial angle here. You might not go there, but others certainly will.

Why not? Their labor is necessary for your comparative liesure. Wealthy societies have low birthrates. That's a natural economic phenomena. Since wealthy societies still need manual laborers to do the dirty jobs, this makes sense.

Any policy that slows down the birthrate at the low end of the economic spectrum would pose a threat to prosperity at the middle and upper end of the economic spectrum. How can you be rich if you don't have lots of stupid idiots out there buying up your useless products? (Particularly those that smart people know are a waste of money).

And thus you draw a distinction between 'those that have it' and 'those that do not'.

All well and fine for your private enterprises, but that's political suicide for democratic liberty.

No, I don't hold that.

But I do believe that if you switched babies from a rich family with a poor one, you just massively increased the probability that the kid from the poor parents raised in a wealthy environment will have a much higher socioeconomic status than the kid from the rich parents raised in the poor family. Socio-economic status co-relates to socio-economic status of one's (environmental) parent's more than it does to any individual factor.

Or put identical twins in two adopted families and you will see some different results - entirely determined by socio-economic status environments.

History points to a different story. Highly successful men are notorious for having highly mediocre children.

How come we don't get great science from Newton's or Einstein's children?

According to your theory, certain family names ought to keep popping up in our lists of famous scientists. In reality, they don't.

I would argue that you will get ten times better results (faster and easier)from this than from any eugenics policy.

I think that any eugenics program is politically suicidal and thus exacts a price far greater than any potential benefit.

I don't think you can substantially assert that "natural selection" favors the least competent.

If that were true, our society would be degenerating rather than growing. We continue to make technological, scientific and cultural-political advances. Ergo, our "natural selections" are doing just fine.

I don't care about motives. I care about policy results. I don't see your policy producing the result you presume. I see only the necessary element of authoritarianism and that is too high a price to pay for anything.

At the age of Eighty eight , coming from a very underpriviledged background (in the beginning of my life), I would like to climb onto a soapbox and vent my anger and disgust for all those who be-little "Eugenics",entirely.

If humanity is ever going to reach the pinacle of the "Ideal Life" for all, "Eugenics", will be the direction to take. and I don't mean in the same way or methods as our known, past Dictators tried it, but in a way that recognizes heredity and education are the conveyance by which we will reach that place.

From a life time of experience, I suggest, the first step is education. We are all born with some intelligence, (If we are really human). Where intelligence leaves off, education should begin and that is as soon as a child can understand a few words and pay attention. No one! Has ever produced evidence that the human brain is less or more in any particular body at birth. But training and education will promote growth of that intelligence, drastically. I am not now speaking of those born with evident mental disabilities. We will always have a few unfortunte specimens, and status of the parents will not change that fact. There are just as many idiots among the elite families as there are among an equal number of those of wretched povety and circumstances.

Imagine if you can, a melting pot filled with humanity and someone stiring that pot in a way that bring a few to the top. On occasion, one of those fortunate to even be at the top, is able to escape. He may or may not be very bright and manages to escape to a better place. but a great many more of higher intellignce never get near the top of the pot, so can never escape to a better life. Therefore, luck and chance are our only way to succeed in life under our present system of society.


Take a lesson from China. From a highly intelligent people, a lack of education and ubcontrollable birth rates, they nealy destroyed themselves. Unfortunately, They resorted to a cruel dictatorship to survive. But it did work for them, at least they did survive. We must find a more humane method to attain a better goal than thay have achieved. liberal Eugenitics is a much better method.

Rat surrenders to Rabbit?